Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/01265/B Page 1 of 84
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/01265/B Applicant : Fort Island Developments Ltd Proposal : Redevelopment of disused hotel site with new hotel and leisure facilities and 40 residential apartments, with associated highway and drainage works Site Address : Golf Links Hotel Fort Island Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1UA
Head of Development Management: Miss Jennifer Chance Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed development would be located outside of an existing settlement and as such be contrary to Strategic Policy 2 that directs new development to existing towns and villages as well as Strategic Policy 10, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 all of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. The proposed development would be likely to have an unacceptable adverse impact on protected wildlife and important habitats, contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016
R 3. The proposed development would be likely to have an unacceptable adverse impact on the environment by reason of light pollution and noise contrary to Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 4. The proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape, by reason of its scale and massing, and as such would be contrary to Landscape Proposal 22 of the Area Plan for the South 2013 and General Policies 2 and 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/01265/B Page 2 of 84
matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Langness Golf Club Limited (LGCL) The Herring House, Fort Island Road The Haven, Derbyhaven Harbour House, Derbyhaven Seagull Hollow Old School House 1 and 2, Marine Court
It is recommended that the following persons or organisation and owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are considered not to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The Secretary of Isle of Man Friends of the Earth Astromanx The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society Manx Bird Life Derbyhaven Residents' Society (DRS) Holmstead, Derbyhaven Road The Cottage, Derbyhaven Flat 4, Marine Court 6, Marine Court, Derbyhaven Road Cameron Court, Fort Island Road The Golf Lodge 20 Athol Street, Douglas Balladoyle, Fort Island Road 1 The Crescent, Derbyhaven 5 The Crescent, Derbyhaven 6 The Crescent, Derbyhaven 7 The Crescent, Derbyhaven Great Meadow, Malew 5, High View Road, Douglas Marina House, Bay View Road in Port St. Mary 3 Costain Close in Colby 8 Douglas Street, Castletown The Old Parsonage Barns, St. Mark's 5, Windsor Terrace, Douglas Thie Yuan, Port St. Mary; Ballakesh Farm, Bride 10 Bridge Street, Castletown Whitburn, Shore Road, Castletown. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT IS ONE THAT PROPOSES MORE THAN 8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND IS OF SUCH A SCALE AND COMPLEXITY THAT THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT CONSIDERS IT OUGHT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMITTEE.
This application was considered at the planning committee meeting of 15 November 2021 but was deferred for a Planning Committee site visit.
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/01265/B Page 3 of 84
The report has been updated, but only in respect of typographical and grammatical correction and otherwise remains the same with the exception of the deletion of the suggested reason for refusal with respect to foul drainage which it is suggested could be dealt with by way of a Grampian conditions should committee members be minded to approve.
0 PREAMBLE 0.1 This application was submitted in 2017 and has been subject to amendments. The broad timeline has included:
0.2 A Petition of Doleance submitted by Langness Golf Course Limited against the Department was made on the basis that consideration of the application was taking an unreasonable amount of time. The court judgement press summary states 'Following a hearing in December 2020, the court finds that the delay in deciding the application (caused by DEFA's failure to action the obtaining of an independent hotel viability assessment) is a breach of the legal requirement on DEFA to decide planning applications "as soon as practicable" and "wherever possible" within 8 weeks of the receipt of the application or such further particulars as DEFA may decide should be provided. However, the court also decides that LGCL, as an objector, has no right to seek an order requiring DEFA to make a decision within the time requested by LGCL. This is because:- 1. There is no legal authority to support the making of such an order. It is therefore without legal foundation. 2. Objectors have no right to appeal against a failure by DEFA to make a planning decision.'
0.3 It should be noted that the applicant's consultants GVA Grimley later changed their name to Avison Young; for ease this report refers to GVA/AY.
1 THE SITE 1.1 The site lies on the north easternmost part of Langness peninsula (other than St. Michael's Isle which is attached to the mainland by a causeway).
1.2 The site includes:
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/01265/B Page 4 of 84
1.3 A public footpath (part of the Raad ny Foillan coastal footpath) runs around the site, around the northern side of the site on the coast and down around the edge of the peninsula to return back towards Castletown.
2 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application proposes the demolition of the buildings on the site and their replacement with a hotel and apartments. The hotel would have 40 bedrooms and there would be 40 apartments. Alterations to the highway in Derbyhaven are also proposed in the form of the reconfiguration of the carriageway, narrowing it and providing an area of hardstanding on the northern side to manage vehicles turning around the corner toward and from the north and the provision of a newly routed footway on all sides of this junction.
2.2 The building would have four floors with the ground floor being the only continuous area of roofed space - the floors above being accommodation arranged around an open central area. The ground floor would accommodate a covered car parking area accommodating 80 spaces (including two garages), a gymnasium, two spa rooms, salon and class room in the central area with 40 double bedrooms, staff accommodation, laundry, bin store, substation and a commercial kitchen serving a lounge and restaurant.
The first floor would accommodate 15 apartments, the second floor 14, the third 9 floor apartments; and the fourth 2 apartments. The apartments would range in size from 112sq.m to 270sq.m.
2.3 A water feature would run from the western side of the building and drop down into the communal area alongside the gymnasium. Access from the apartments would be via four separate staircases and lifts alongside each. A central open area would look down into the communal area on the ground floor.
2.4 The building, at its tallest, would be lower than the tallest point of the existing building. The existing structure includes a tower feature which is 1m higher at its tallest than the proposed building. Some sections of the proposed building are higher than the existing building in that area - up to 7.5m taller. The area of the new building would be greater than that of the existing, coming 5m closer to the highway passing the site but being 1.5m further from the golf clubhouse and sitting generally a similar distance from the golf course to the south east.
2.5 The proposed building would also be horizontally proportioned but finished generally in stone with deeply recessed windows which are largely square in rendered recesses. Windows are proposed to be framed in grey uPVC.
2.6 The Design Statement explains that the design objective is to create something which recognises and respects the key views, locates the building to reflect the prevailing wind and respect the existing access and connectivity whilst rooting the building firmly in the landscape and allowing the hotel and residential accommodation some degree of privacy from each other whilst allowing linkage between the two uses. The location of the hotel on the ground level would allow greatest accessibility with the rooms having either an outward view towards the coast or across the golf course or inward to the landscaped courtyard. The restaurant's windows are proposed to take advantage of the panoramic views to the north, north-west and east with patio doors opening to the south to allow outside dining when the weather permits. The proposed walled garden has the potential to accommodate a marquee for weddings and parties if desired. The restaurant layout would enable different arrangements, including formal larger scale dining or greater numbers of smaller tables and chairs. Bicycle spaces would be available within the basement car park, within the hotel spaces alongside the restaurant and within the walled garden area. Dropping off and turning space is proposed for buses and coaches.
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/01265/B Page 5 of 84
2.7 Externally 68 parking spaces are provided in what is described as a walled garden, to the front of the building and between it and the 'walled garden'.
2.8 Drainage of surface water from the site is now proposed to go to Derbyhaven. Foul drainage would be provided through the refurbishment of the existing pumping station and protection of the existing rising main, protected by gabion basket type construction behind rock armour, above the mean high water mark. This connects to the existing foul rising main to Derbyhaven.
2.9 Applicant's Planning Statement The applicant explains that the hotel has been closed since 2007, the buildings disused since then and is not fit for purpose as a modern hotel. They confirm a structural survey has highlighted significant defects and it is likely that asbestos is contained therein. They suggest that the development will secure a use on the site for which it is designated in the Area Plan for the South, promote economic and tourism benefits for the Island and improve the amenity of area including the nearby Ancient Monuments and the golf course. The scheme will include highway and drainage improvements and will generate a financial contribution towards affordable housing need on the Island.
The Statement refers to the planning history, referring to an application in principle in 2002 for the replacement of the hotel and golf clubhouse with a new development incorporating 4 residential apartments, 51 timeshare suites and a variety of leisure and conference facilities. This expired without being progressed to the reserved matters stage. The applicant draws attention to the fact that the site is designated as Hotel, despite at the time of designation, the hotel was not operational. They consider that the existing building has little aesthetic merit and its re-use is limited. They note that whilst concern has been raised at the increase in volume or mass of the built form as a result of the proposal, they suggest that the test is not whether the proposal results in a larger building, but rather whether the resulting environmental and landscape impact is acceptable. They accept that from some viewpoints the impact and changes will be significant, but they do not accept that this conflicts with Landscape Proposal 22.
They do not consider the site to be countryside given the provisions in the Area Plan for the South that designate it for Hotel and that allows for redevelopment of the site. As such they do not consider that the proposal has to comply with General Policy 3 but if it did, it would comply with General Policy 3c as they do not believe that a larger building necessarily prevents a reduction in the impact of the existing.
The applicant describes the works which will be incorporated to promote energy efficiency.
2.10 A thorough examination of the commercial viability of redeveloping the site for tourism use has been undertaken by their consultants, GVA/AY. The report considers visitor numbers and hotel provision on the Island.
The methodology included looking at demographic and economic trends; a structure of the existing market and any gaps; the potential projected performance through discussions with DfE and on-Island hotel managers; primary research to scope demand and prices from key user groups including local companies, wedding and event organisers and golf tour operators; a review of spa facilities; and an examination of supply of quality restaurants to scope the opportunity for a destination restaurant.
The GVA/AY report makes suggestions for a suitable scale and mix and marketing position; provides advice on the most suitable operating model; provides a cost analysis using elemental capital costs and an appraisal to ascertain the development returns on a levered basis and gives financial projections for the first 5 years of operation.
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/01265/B Page 6 of 84
Their conclusion is positive from an operational perspective. They indicate that the offer should be a good quality destination hotel that provides an offering otherwise unmatched on the Island. They state that hotels on the Isle of Man are constrained by seasonality which would unduly impact on a larger scale hotel but it would still need to be of sufficient size to provide an efficient operation. They feel that a good quality function, restaurant and spa facilities to be important components to drive demand out of peak season. They highlight risks to be the exit from Europe and Mount Murray re-opening which provides for added competition. They feel the site characteristics are positive, with impressive views and the proximity to the airport. A negative is the distance from Douglas being a 25 minute drive away which would put off corporate business. They recommend a high quality 40 bed hotel. Any larger would not justify the significant capital and operating costs, but it would be large enough to accommodate weddings and TT guests. A much larger hotel in this location is unlikely to justify the significant associated operational costs given the demand profile and would have to shut a number of its rooms to survive for all but "a handful of weeks".
In terms of outlay and returns, GVA/AY provide details on costings. The cost of refurbishment would be somewhere in the region of £7,000,000 excluding land costs, overheads and finance charges (a total cost of around £23,000,000). The projected sales income by year 3 is estimated to be £4,292,174. The cost of new build hotel is a little less at £6,400,000. The value of the hotel at year 3 would be £4,292,174; the total cost of development at £7,666,544; the development loan (interest only) £3,825,000; equity required £3,759,176; loan balance at year 3 to be £3,288,309 and income from years 1-3 to be -£235,282 which would leave a value at year three as minus £3million.
The projected income from the apartments as proposed result in an additional income of £23,500,000 with around £4,000,000 hotel returns, resulting in the project just breaking into profit by year three after opening. The income is based upon occupancy levels of 52.4%, 60%, 61.7%, 63.6% and 65.5% for years 1 to 5 inclusive with average daily rates ranging from £93.48 to £109.60 and resulting in a yield of between £48.99 and £71.77 per room over the same period. They explain that there is unlikely to be grant assistance from Department for Enterprise due to the fact that the developer will not be the same as the hotel operator.
2.11 The proposed use - residential and tourism The applicant suggests that Tourism Proposal 1 of the Area Plan accepts that there may be a case where alternative forms of development may be proposed and that these may be acceptable if supported by appropriate evidence which demonstrates that the hotel is no longer commercially viable. Indeed they argue this suggests that a wholly different use could be proposed which does not include a hotel.
The viability assessment clarifies that a hotel development cannot be constructed or operated on a commercially viable basis by a developer and would therefore result in the existing building remaining in place in its unused and deteriorating condition. Their calculations forecast that there will still be a significant gross development loss (39%) at year three. In order to break even, an amount of supporting residential development is included, estimated to need to be somewhere in the area of £326 per sq ft.
2.12 Affordable Housing Whilst arguing that Housing Policy 5, which requires 25% of any scheme for 8 dwellings or more is not directly applicable as the site is not designated for residential development, they include the offer of an unspecified financial contribution towards affordable housing which would be made through a legal agreement.
2.13 Public Open Space The applicant refers to the Strategic Plan requirement for the provision of this for developments of more than 10 dwellings. It is their view that the site is already well served by informal public open space in the form of the foreshore, the brooghs and the public rights of
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/01265/B Page 7 of 84
way and publicly accessible areas. In addition, the development makes provision through internal courtyards and the green space between the hotel and the former swimming pool, and this is considered sufficient to meet the requirements of the future residents. Due to the nature of the residential units, it is unlikely that there will need to be children's play facilities included and whilst the spa and gym facilities are not the usual forms of public open space required or provided, they are available in this case.
2.14 Environmental Impact The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) submitted deals with the following areas: landscape and visual amenity, archaeology and cultural heritage, ecology, traffic, drainage and flood risk, noise and vibration and dust.
The Environmental Statement (ES) considers alternatives of: do nothing; alternative use; and alternative design. In terms of doing nothing, the importance of the hotel is acknowledged in the Area Plan and the prospect of retaining but not using the existing building, which is generally considered unsightly, would not be in the public interest. In terms of alternative uses, the applicant considered office uses but concluded that there would be insufficient demand outside of Douglas, and as the hotel itself is considered to be unviable on its own, the only form of enabling development which would create sufficient income to make the project viable would be residential. In terms of alternative design and layout, prior to the conclusion of the design a number of architects were approached to submit ideas for this development, and of those which reached the shortlist stage, one proposed a classical style with apartments on the swimming pool site, which was not considered appropriate for the site, another proposed a similar footprint and layout to the proposed scheme but with a vernacular style of a group of traditional buildings but it was considered that the current approach of a castle/fortress was more appropriate to its setting.
2.15 Landscape and Visual Impact The applicant acknowledges that the Strategic Plan requires development in sensitive landscape or coastal locations to have high design standards with particular need for the development to be integrated into the landscape in terms of materials, design and architectural style and that in this location the protection of the landscape character will be the most important consideration.
The assessment of the impact of the development on the landscape and visual amenity (LVIA) follows guidance provided in Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment and the local document, Chris Blandford Associates (2008) Isle of Man: Landscape Character Assessment.
The LVIA describes the existing building as the major built structure in an essentially flat coastal landscape, characterised by an almost total absence of built development. It considers the existing site to be of very poor quality but the surrounding landscape is considered to be of a high value. The vantage points for the site are listed as St. Michael's Isle, Castletown Golf Links, from the public right of way to the east, and other rights of way on the peninsula. Longer distance views are available from a number of other locations including from higher ground further inland. The most sensitive sites are judged to be the residential properties in Derbyhaven and adjoining roads together with the foreshore area, the roads leading to Langness and St. Michael's Isle, the recreation land on the Island, and the golf course and public rights of way.
It concludes that whilst the sensitivity of the overall area is medium to high, the effect on landscape character would be moderate, entailing some change to the existing landscape but not a significant environmental impact. The impact on cultural heritage - St. Michael's Isle St. Michael's Chapel, Hango Broogh Promontory Fort and Derby Fort is considered to be major/moderate as there would be substantial change to the existing landscape and the
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/01265/B Page 8 of 84
development would constitute a significant environmental effect. In assessing the latter impact, it is suggested that any redevelopment scheme would have a similar effect. They note that the landscape features which are proposed as part of the scheme are not designed to mitigate the landscape impact. Also, it is suggested that the landscape assessment is not inclusive of a critique of the particular design characteristics of the proposal and from the further viewpoints, the design and specific detail of the building will be difficult to discern. The purpose of the assessment is to consider the impact of the development on the landscape.
The consultants add that the view by someone who will have a regular encounter with the site will become less sensitive over time, partly through familiarity and also as the ability to compare the new with the old will diminish. This is very difficult to evaluate and as such is not included in the LVIA but should be taken into account. They also emphasise that the comparison should not be between the existing situation and the proposed but between the operation of the former building with its un-landscaped context and used as it could be without the need for any further approval. They also emphasise that to focus on the application site as one element in a much wider landscape without reference to the rest of it, may be misleading.
2.16 ASSI and ecology
An Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) was carried out in accordance with Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) guidelines and looks at the value and sensitivity of ecological receptors. It notes that the site itself is primarily hardstanding but is adjacent to and encompassed by the Langness, Sandwick and Derbyhaven ASSI. This is the only known place in the British Isles where the lesser mottled grasshopper has been recorded. It is also an important Manx locality for wintering and migrant waders and wildfowl and is considered to be of national nature conservation value. The surrounding area supports a variety of species, birds and invertebrates. There are several protected and notable species within 2km of the site.
The approach to impact in the first instance should be avoided in line with the 'mitigation hierarchy': Avoidance - Seek options that avoid harm to ecological features; Mitigation - Adverse effects should be avoided or minimised through the implementation of mitigation measures; Compensation - Where there are significant residual adverse effects, despite the mitigation measures proposed, these should be offset by appropriate compensatory measures; and/or enhancement - Seek to provide net benefits for biodiversity over and above requirements for avoidance, mitigation or compensation.
The EcIA notes that the built development will be predominantly located within the footprint of the existing derelict buildings and associated hardstanding, thereby minimising effects upon the more ecologically valuable habitats within the site. They state that retained habitats will be enhanced by the implementation of sympathetic management to promote their biodiversity value to compensate for the minimal loss of grassland habitat.
The report notes the impact of the development on the designated sites and bird sanctuary would be noise, disturbance, dust and debris during construction and then afterwards the impact of increased human pressure and lighting which has the potential to disturb resting wintering bird species associated with the designation.
It is suggested that impacts during the operational phase is short term and reversible. During the operational phase they note the scale of development relative to the existing if it were in use. They calculate using the resident population of Malew Parish @ 5,500 the increase in population to be 1.92%. They note there are no guidelines which define threshold values for recreational disturbance which would indicate a quantifiable effect upon the designated site and that it is not possible to accurately predict personal recreational preferences (or changes thereof) of any new resident to occupy the proposed development. It is considered that the potential increase in local population is insignificant and therefore highly unlikely to adversely
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/01265/B Page 9 of 84
affect the favourable conservation status of species which form the qualifying features of the designated site.
They suggest there will be significant negative effects upon the ASSI within the zone of influence scale without mitigation and that mitigation should take the form of a temporary acoustic screen to minimise any disturbance to bird species and that the noise and visual effects will be reduced by the existing ornamental planting strip and semi-improved neutral grassland bund which buffer the intertidal zone from the main area of demolition/construction. Dust levels and debris can also be controlled by conditions. The also suggest demolition be timed to avoid the bird breeding season.
No specific mitigation is recommended for the increase in human pressure as it is not considered to cause a significant impact on the designation. A lighting strategy has been created for the sensitive location of the site with the aim to provide a lighting level which ensures safety but avoids creating a lighting hot spot and limiting light pollution to the surrounding area. In addition, integrated mitigation into the design of the new build will compensate for the loss of Chough breeding habitat in the form of nest boxes and ledges.
In a later submission it is suggested that a covenant imposed upon the occupation of the apartments to prevent the keeping of cats could also be the subject of a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to prevent the impact that cats could have on the areas of ecological importance.
The applicant also now proposes additional measures for the Ringed Plover including a pre- commencement check followed by continuous monitoring during construction through the bird nesting season and in the event of an active nest being found, a protected no works buffer zone will be implemented.
A bat survey was undertaken in June 2016 and the Manx Bat Group concluded that there is minimal likelihood of bats roosting within the building as there was little feeding opportunity within the vicinity, no cover for emerging bats and the building has been unoccupied and unheated.
In terms of lighting and that impact on both the ecological areas and the dark skies designation, it is suggested that the former hotel would have resulted in external lighting which would have had an impact but they have also included a lighting scheme in the application which seeks to minimise light impact upon the wider area.
2.17 Highways
The Transport Assessment describes the characteristics of the roads in the vicinity of the site. It notes that Derbyhaven Road and Fort Island Roads are 'access roads' in the road hierarchy plan. The roads are public adopted highways all the way to St Michael's Isle. Derbyhaven has approximately 60 properties with road frontage access. Fort Island Road is for a length 540 metres a single lane carriageway 3.0-3.3 metres wide with six inter-visible passing places. Sections of Fort Island Road are cycleways. Much of the road is not subject to speed limits and is unlit. There are a number of public footpaths within the vicinity.
Traffic surveys were carried out Wednesday, 13 May, 2015, on Fort Island Road at the access to the Golf Club, at its junction with Derbyhaven Road, and at the junction of Shore Road with The Promenade in order to establish typical vehicular and pedestrian flows along the route between the application site and Castletown during the morning and evening peak and inter- peak periods during a neutral month. The two-way flow on Fort Island Road, along the application site frontage, was between 7 and 16 in the morning and 6-10 in the evening. A maximum of 14 pedestrians were recorded. Flows on other sections increased relative to their proximity towards the more urban areas.
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/01265/B Page 10 of 84
Transport in the Urban Environment, 1997, refers to the 'environmental capacity' of a road which it defines as the maximum flow on a road which is compatible with a good environment. It goes on to state that this may be substantially less than its traffic carrying capacity and that an 'access' road or 'local distributor' road may have an 'environmental capacity' which typically lies in the range 300-600 vehicles per hour. Fort Island Road is a long established access road and its environmental capacity in that location is likely to be at the lower end of the range. Even so, its present flows are less than 20% of those which are considered not to be detrimental to the amenity of an area. For Derbyhaven Road the flows are still less than 15% of the 300 vehicles per hour. The low levels of activity generally also transfers to low activity on surveyed road junctions.
The Assessment uses the established TRICS database to predict future road use. This suggests the 40 bed hotel would generate 20 vehicles during the morning peak period and the 40 apartments would generate 17 vehicles. During the evening peak the proposed hotel would generate 15 vehicles and the apartments 19 vehicles.
Overall the development would result in an impact that would be less than the environmental capacity of the road.
The personal injury collision record for the five year period August 2010 - August 2015 is provided that shows there are no significant highway safety issues within the area.
The nearest bus stops to the application site are located at the Shore Road/A5 junction. The bus stops are served by typically 3 services per hour seven days a week in each direction operating between Port Erin, Castletown, Airport and Douglas.
A Transport Assessment Addendum was submitted in June 2021 in response to comments made by Highway Services on 26 November 2020. The Addendum addresses policies on climate change, sustainable and active travel; arrangement of vehicular access and visibility splays; clarification on the amount of car parking to be provided and concerns over overspill on Fort Island Road; internal site layout issues; and whether a Saturday assessment should be considered.
Amended plans show increased cycle parking, widened pavements in front of the hotel and widened visibility splays as recommended for 30mph zones. They clarify that parking for the proposal is adequate and clarify that it does not propose parking for the golf club. The golf course is owned and operated entirely separately to the former hotel site and the golf club only has parking spaces available to it which are outside the application site. The proposed development will not impact on those spaces.
The addendum includes details in respect of bin store location and whether they meet the requirements of section 11.13 'Refuse Bins' in Manual for Manx Roads (MfMR). It states that the apartment bin store is in sufficient proximity for use for most residents, and at 40m beyond the furthest is only 10m above the 30m suggested carry distance. For the other bin store it is located 62 metres from the undercroft entrance onto Fort Island Road but it is suggested that four wheeled bin containers can be safely moved along a straight level car park.
In terms of Highway Services suggestion that a Saturday period should also be assessed for traffic flows, they indicate that due to Covid 19 Pandemic travel restrictions on the Island, it has not been feasible to collect representative Saturday data on the usage of Fort Island Road and instead have used a Department of Transport Automatic Traffic Count of Douglas Road in Castletown over the period Monday 13th July 2015 to Sunday 19 July 2015 which shows that daily traffic flows on a Saturday are 20% lower than a weekday and that the peak hour on a Saturday is between 11.00 am and 12.00 noon, and during this time flows are 49% lower than the weekday morning peak hour between 8.00 am and 9.00 am. They state that
==== PAGE 11 ====
17/01265/B Page 11 of 84
notwithstanding that the weekend traffic flows are significantly lower, the proposed development trip generation for a Saturday has been determined using TRICS data. The trip generation profile for the proposed hotel and apartments have been calculated separately over the day (7:00am to 10:00pm) and then combined in order to determine the highest combined development trip generation in any hour on a Saturday. They state that it is predicted to generate a peak hourly flow of 29 two-way vehicle trips on a Saturday between 4:00pm to 5:00pm and between 11.00am and 12.00 noon the development is forecast to generate 24 two-way vehicle trips. They suggest that these are both lower than the weekday peak hour trips.
Highway Services have requested details of the HGV trips likely to be generated by the proposed development. Again the TRICS database has been used as a basis which suggests the number of HGVs likely to be generated by the proposed development is six HGV movements per day on a weekday and two on a Saturday. These movements will be associated with occasional servicing and refuse collection for the hotel and apartments.
2.18 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage The ES suggests that there are no designated heritage assets within the site but within 2km there are 8 protected Ancient Monuments and 4 Registered Buildings. The ES suggests that it is unlikely that there are any archaeological remains within the site and that whilst there would be an impact on the Ancient Monuments nearby, including Hango Broogh which is immediately alongside, this will be no greater than is the existing impact and there is an opportunity for enhancement through the installation of interpretation boards.
2.19 Flood risk and Drainage The ES confirms that the existing building is not at risk of fluvial or tidal flooding and there is no record of flooding having occurred here. Manx Utilities have advised that the finished floor level of any new habitable accommodation is at least 5.56m Douglas 02 datum.
The submission notes that drainage was historically provided by discharging foul effluent into Derbyhaven Bay via a holding tank and short sea outfall pipe. Macerating pumps were introduced in the 1960s and a foul sewer rising main was laid between the pumping station and the main foul sewer in Derbyhaven, some 1.1km away although the pump station and rising main were never used. It is now proposed to use them acknowledging they will need replacement or maintenance, to connect the new development to the main system. The Reno mattress protection is to be replaced.
The original location for surface water discharge has been amended and is now to be taken to the north west of the site into Derbyhaven Bay.
2.20 Noise and vibration The ES suggests that construction activity will result in noise levels which will be below or within the recommended internal noise levels (with windows closed) at the Golf Lodge, the nearest residential property. Whilst five condensers are proposed as part of the development, these will be housed in acoustic enclosures to mitigate any noise.
2.21 Dust It is not anticipated that there will be significant amounts of dust or dirt generated during demolition and construction period but a Dust Action Plan will include a number of dust control mitigation measures.
2.22 Cumulative impacts The ES takes into account 15/00602/B for the creation of berms associated with the golf course which it considers could provide useful noise and visual mitigation as well as possibly preventing stray balls from entering the hotel site.
==== PAGE 12 ====
17/01265/B Page 12 of 84
3 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 requires that in the determination of development proposals, the Department should have regard to, inter alia, the provisions of the Development Plan, and all other material considerations.
3.2 The Development Plan is comprised of the relevant Area Plan, in this case the Area Plan for the South 2013, and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
3.3 The Area Plan for the South The site is identified on the Area Plan for the South for Tourism Site (Hotel). The adjacent land to the south is identified as Open Space for Particular Purposes - Golf Course. The site is also indicated on the Constraints Map 1 as a Bird Sanctuary, Area of Ecological Interest (Draft) and a confirmed ASSI with the Hango Broogh Ancient Monument. The site falls within the E11 - Rugged Coast Landscape Character Area.
The Area Plan contains the advice and Proposals which are relevant to the site. A summary of these are included at appendix 1. The Area Plan can be read in full here. https://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/development- plan/area-plan-for-the-south/.
The Area Plan contains a number of landscape policies relevant to the area, the overall strategy linking these is to conserve the character, quality and distinctiveness of the coastal area with its rich ecological habitats, open and expansive panoramic views, and to conserve the tranquil and rugged character of the area with its numerous sites of archaeological importance, such as the former mines and former smelt mines. In terms of Langness, the policy is to resist any development that would detract from the unspoilt character and appearance of the rugged coast or from the sense of openness in the area.
Landscape Proposal 22 states that 'The design of any new or replacement buildings on Langness should be such as not to increase significantly their landscape impact and should be so designed as to respect the location of, and facilitate public access to, the promontory fort on Langness known as Hango Broogh'.
It notes that Langness is a 'tombolo', a unique feature on the Island, and has a number of rare habitats above and below the water. There, the most important roost of wading birds on the Isle of Man can be found and possibly the best area of saltmarsh. Waterfowl are relatively abundant around the southeast coast and inland there are small areas of reedbeds, which are a rare habitat on the Isle of Man. The upland moorland and plantations have nesting Hen Harriers and Shorteared Owls and there is a winter Hen Harrier roost.
The Plan notes that coastal habitats are particularly vulnerable to climate changes.
Langness, Sandwick, and Derbyhaven is an Area of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI) for protected species, salt marsh, intertidal and coastal habitats and important geological exposures; and Langness, Derbyhaven and Fort Island is a recognised Bird Sanctuary.
St Michael's Isle, adjacent to the Langness Peninsula contains several Ancient Monuments and is also a popular destination for walkers and birdwatchers.
In terms of tourism the Area Plan for the South recognises that there are a number of tourist premises throughout area ranging from self-catering, bed and breakfast and hotel accommodation. The Plan notes that historically, much of the tourist accommodation was located in large seafront hotels in Port Erin and Port St Mary and that the demand for this type of accommodation is in decline and many of these large hotels have now closed allowing for redevelopment/conversion of the sites to take place where appropriate. The Department of Economic Development's (now DfE) approach is to support the retention of and development
==== PAGE 13 ====
17/01265/B Page 13 of 84
of tourist accommodation but would generally agree to the loss of tourist premises, where it is clearly demonstrated that they are no longer commercially viable. In noting the decline the Plan sees the retention of hotels as vital to the continued attraction of the area.
Tourism Proposal 1: 'The following hotels have been identified as important to tourism and must be retained for hotel use: the Castletown Golf Links; the Sefton Express Airport Hotel; the Cherry Orchard; and the Falcon's Nest Hotel. Proposals for redevelopment or re-use would not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that hotel use is no longer commercially viable.'
3.4 The Strategic Plan
The following Strategic Plan policies are considered relevant and can be read in full at https://www.gov.im/media/1350906/the-isle-of-man-strategic-plan-2016-approved-plan- 15_03_16.pdf or in summary in appendix 2.
The Strategic Aim Strategic Policies 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 Spatial Policy 5 General Policies 2, 3, 4 Environment Policies 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 22, 24, 40 Housing Policies, 4, 5, Business Policy 11 Recreation Policies 3, 5 Community Policies 10, 11 Transport Policies 4, 6, 7, 8 Infrastructure Policies 1, 2, 5 Energy Policy 5
The Strategic Plan sets out a number of Island wide policies to be considered when determining planning applications. They cover subjects such as where development should occur (spatial strategies), environmental considerations, development of housing, infrastructure needs and other general considerations.
The overarching Strategic Aim is to plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage.
The plan seeks to optimise use of existing resources utilising effectively previously developed land and redundant buildings and being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services. New development should be located to promote an integrated transport network to minimise car journeys, make use of public transport and not adversely affect highway safety for all users, to encourage pedestrian movement,
The Strategic Plan directs new development to our existing towns and villages, stating that development would be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances such as for agricultural need, conversion of existing redundant buildings which are of architectural, historic or social value or where the land has been previously developed, and that use is redundant and where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
==== PAGE 14 ====
17/01265/B Page 14 of 84
The policies seek to protect the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments and sites of archaeological interest; protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.
Environment Policy 1 states that the countryside and its ecology would be protected for its own sake, and defines the countryside, for the purposes of that specific policy, as being all land which is outside the defined settlements or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. The policy states that development which would adversely affect the countryside would not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
Other environmental policies set out that development would not be permitted if it would adversely affect species and habitats of international importance; proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.
In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site conditions or Planning Agreements should be used to minimise disturbance; conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated.
Similarly development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of pollution, vibration, odour or light pollution. Nor should development be permitted which would damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site or an Ancient Monument or their settings.
The policies seek to prevent development being at risk from flooding or causing flooding elsewhere or resulting in the need for coast protection works.
For certain development such as the one proposed, an Environmental Impact Assessment is required to be submitted.
In terms of tourism, the policies recognise that it had been an important element in the Island's economy and that general trends have changed more recently to a swing towards high yield, lower volume tourism such as business trips, short breaks and special interest attractions. The policies state that a balance needs to be struck between the needs of tourism and the protection of natural assets, and that tourism development should be sustainable in accordance with the objectives of this plan. There is no special reason why less demanding policies should be applied to tourism development than for other types of development in the countryside. The Plan recognised more and better quality bed spaces are needed for the industry to develop.
There also needs to be recognition that the property market can have a major impact with a continued loss of traditional resort accommodation taking advantage of the high cost of residential property, meaning that there would be a heavy reliance on new build hotels if serviced stock levels are to be retained or increased. New forms of contemporary tourism development would be welcomed, particularly those that satisfy customer demand for high quality accommodation in rural areas provided that they comply with the policies in the plan.
The approach to facilitating tourism development has moved away from applying a tourism designation to many areas in mixed use locations the designations are likely to be
==== PAGE 15 ====
17/01265/B Page 15 of 84
residential/tourism or mixed use/tourism and a specific designation for tourism will be given to specific tourist attractions and existing large individual hotel sites. Business Policy 11 states that tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable objectives of the plan, and policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development would be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development.
For new residential development there are policies which seek 25% of the number of units to be affordable but allow for this to be provided as a commuted sum in some instances. There are also policies which set out appropriate levels of open space and recreational facilities when more than 10 residential units are proposed.
New development should also be designed with fire prevention and safety in mind with access to adequate water and provide for access for emergency vehicles and well as being capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner. The needs of pedestrians would be given similar weight to the needs of other road users. All applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment.
The Strategic Plan provides car parking standards which for this development would be two spaces per each apartment and one space per guest bedroom for hotels in rural and suburban locations.
The Plan states that all new development must be capable of being drained of foul and surface water in a safe, convenient, and environmentally acceptable manner. Development should only take place where it can be connected to the public drainage systems.
The Plan also requires proposal for more than 5 dwellings or 100 square metres of other development to be accompanied by an Energy Impact Assessment.
In addition all development should respect the site and its surroundings in terms of, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping; not adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape; not adversely affect public views of the sea; incorporate existing topography and landscape features; not adversely affect the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including servicing; not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; not be on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; take account of community and personal safety and security; and be designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
3.5 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The Isle of Man Hotel Futures report 2016, was prepared on behalf of the Department of Economic Development (now Department for Enterprise). David Cretney MLC, the then Department of Economic Development's political member with responsibility for the Visitor Economy said:
'The study would be used to inform planning policy and decisions on hotel development and retention. It would also be used as the basis for developing a strategy with the intention of accelerating hotel investment in the Island.'
The Study was accepted by the DfE to whom it gives options, but it is not a formal Planning Policy document and has not been considered by Tynwald.
The Hotel Futures Study shows a need for a higher quality hotel offer on the island and a requirement for additional hotel provision to grow peak season demand, cater for events- related business, better meet the needs of the corporate market, and replace further losses of
==== PAGE 16 ====
17/01265/B Page 16 of 84
poor quality guest house stock. The report refers a number of times to the application site, noting that Castletown Golf Links is within Rolex's top 1,000 golf courses in the World, was named as the 75th best links course in Great Britain and Ireland by National Club Golfer in 2015, and has previously hosted major golf championships.
The Report explains various funding and operating approaches for hotels. Hotels can be developed and operated under a number of different business models with hotel brand owners, franchises and property developers playing different roles in each case, with development and operating risks shifting under the different models. The levels of capital outlay as well as development risk required by a hotel company therefore vary considerably between these options. Many operators, particularly at the 4 star level, which is much more capital intensive, are likely to be interested in options put to them that involve management contracts than in building and funding hotels themselves. Many of the chain hotel companies would have a mix of structures in place, though some do prefer a single route. Often franchisees are looking to build the asset value of the company with a view to exit within a 5-10 year period, and in such situations are less likely to be interested in lease options.
The report discusses barriers to potential hotel development, citing difficulties in accessing Government funding and viability generally, noting, "for abandoned hotels that may have the potential to be re-positioned, high development costs and the potential for renewed interest in residential conversion as the residential property market picks up, pose major challenges to bringing such properties back into use as hotels." "From our experience we believe that small boutique hotels could work for the Castletown Golf Links Hotel and Bay Queen Hotel sites, most probably in conjunction with other visitor accommodation provision, spas and leisure clubs, and some residential development."
They recommend a series of actions which would help deliver hotels on the Island as follows:
Easy to access Government financial support; work to persuade Isle of Man banks to lend for hotel and guest house refurbishment; provide business planning and marketing advice and support for smaller operators; work to encourage national hotel property agencies to become more active in selling hotels and guest houses on the island; carry out stronger marketing of the island, and events development, particularly focused on boosting shoulder season leisure demand; increase corporate and contractor demand and create a stronger winter hotel market on the Island.
It notes the potential need to allow some enabling residential development in return for investment in existing hotels, ideally secured through legal agreement.
It suggests that there could be potential for boutique hotels in Douglas, Peel, Castletown, Port Erin and Port St Mary, including possibly a luxury boutique hotel in Douglas, given suitable properties for conversion. It suggests that such hotels could trade at high room rates, so should be supportable at the levels of occupancy that are achievable on the island. It notes that boutique hotels are successfully operating in other island, coastal and resort destinations and sees no reason that they cannot successfully operate on the Isle of Man."
The study concludes that "Our research shows that it would be very difficult to get new-build hotel development to stack up on the island from a purely property development perspective. Property developers need to have a clear exit route. The seasonality of the Isle of Man hotel market effectively limits the profit levels that hotels can achieve here, to the extent that end values mean that a property developer would be unable to sell a completed hotel for more than the cost to develop it. New-build hotel development (and significant investment in existing hotels) would either need an investor that is prepared to invest for the long-term, some form of enabling higher value development to subsidise the hotel investment, most likely in terms of residential development, and/or financial assistance from the Government."
==== PAGE 17 ====
17/01265/B Page 17 of 84
The study recommends that additional guidance would be helpful, stating, "a Hotel Planning Policy Guidance Note would need to have sufficient status to be a material planning consideration. It would give clearer guidance to the market on the potential for securing permission for the development of new hotels and the upgrading and redevelopment of existing stock. It could also include more specific guidance on the assessments around viability relating to retention and also enabling development, setting out what the applicant must prove." No such advice has yet been produced by Government.
4 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The following applications are relevant to the consideration of the application.
4.2 02/02552/A Approval in principle for erection of a new timeshare facility including 4 permanent penthouse apartments, 51 Timeshare Suites, 2 Restaurants, Conference Facilities, Swimming Pools, Leisure Complex and Golf Club, to replace existing hotel.
This application was approved on 18th November 2004.
4.3 12/00443/B proposed the erection of a replacement golf clubhouse and was approved on appeal following a refusal by the Planning Committee. The owners of the hotel objected to the application for a number of reasons including a concern that the larger building could harm the outlook from and the environment within the hotel. The inspector notes that the elevational treatment proposed would result in the main elevation that would be seen on approaching along Fort Island Road would be finished in Manx stone as would most of the other elevations and he considered that this was an acceptable material in this location (paragraph 27). Whilst he notes that the elevation facing the hotel would be finished differently, in render and fibre cement cladding, this would not be widely open to public view and would be seen in juxtaposition with the rendered elevations of the hotel. He dismisses concern over the increased height and size of the building as it would be seen in the context of the much larger hotel which includes some single storey elements but is partly three storeys and "the castellated tower rises to the equivalent of about 5 storeys". He concluded that the building would not be unduly conspicuous or out of place in its context by virtue of its height (paragraph 30).
4.4 15/00602/B proposed earthworks on the 18th green and fairway to the south east of the hotel building. This was refused by the Planning Committee but approved on appeal. Again the owners of the hotel objected to the application, due, amongst other things, to a concern that the works would adversely affect the outlook and amenities for those in the hotel. The inspector notes "the potential for mutual economic benefit" from the improvements to both the golf course and the hotel and swimming pool as being "undeniable" (paragraph 28). She considered that the proposed works would neither fetter the hotel's redevelopment nor would they be an unacceptable restraint (paragraph 30).
5 THE ARC REPORT 5.1 To assist in the understanding of the commercial viability of hotels, the applicant's submission and primary comments made in respect of it, the Department commissioned the assistance of ARC Consulting Partners who specialise in hospitality, real estate and tourism. The report is available on line but their conclusions are contained here.
The Department sought assistance in the following specific areas:
==== PAGE 18 ====
17/01265/B Page 18 of 84
ARC consultants explain that hotels are recognised as 'operational real estate' a combination of property and an active trading business that requires specialist expertise both in its development phase and in subsequent operational phases and eventual divestment. The industry is susceptible to economic fluctuations by local or national or international economic conditions. The last few years (up until the current market situation) have seen steady growth in UK hotel demand and growing interest by investors in the sector. Many major hotels have on average seen demand grow, reflected in occupancies rising from 70% in 2012 through to circa 77% by 2018 as shown from a benchmark sample overleaf. Despite growing demand trading profit figures have shown a slight decline in the last few years due to higher operating costs.
They feel this is an important scheme given the natural attributes of the site and in the context of Isle of Man's desire to enhance its tourism product and provide higher quality accommodation. The existing hotel is unsightly and needs to be demolished, a factor taken into account in the costing provided for the proposed new hotel and mixed-use development.
They state that given the combination of assessments provided to date and their own views in their report that the existing building is unlikely to be viable from a commercial perspective. The option of refurbishment and reinstatement of the existing building is therefore not considered an economic alternative
In their considerations of a hotel only development option, they feel that given the conclusions of the hotel market appraisals and feasibility studies carried out generally for the island (the Hotel Futures study) and more recently for this particular scheme (the GVA/AY feasibility), the identified market is one of quality but not of scale. In assuming a smaller boutique hotel (of anywhere between 40-60 bedrooms) and given the combined factors of (a) need to demolish and existing building and (b) the limitations inherent in a seasonal location they believe a new standalone hotel development, is unlikely to be justifiable economically as it would not provide the required returns for a typical hotel investor to warrant pursuing. They acknowledge debate can be had about the level of many of the assumptions used, they feel as do GVA/AY that a small quality hotel of 40 rooms can make an operating /trading profit but are not necessarily an attractive or viable financing proposition and unlikely to generate normal return requirements. Therefore they feel the hotel only option is therefore not considered likely or feasible.
In their considerations of a Mixed Use Scheme ARC were asked about what level of non-hotel uses would be required in order to achieve a viable scheme. They note that the current scheme allocates the majority of space to the apartments and the concept behind the management and future marketing of the units are at this stage. They feel the concept for the apartment sales is important in this context. They note that options exist that involve selling the apartments outright or alternatives enabling owners of the apartments rights to let their units in peak season (or when not in use) through the hotel management company could provide the hotel with greater rooms in certain periods, enhancing its viability. [nb this has not been suggested]. They note that the inclusion of apartment sales has the potential to generate returns that would dwarf the hotel values and potentially provide the funds for the development to proceed. They therefore support this concept as inherently reinforcing any viability case. They note that in the documents provided there is less detail on the assumptions behind the construction costs and apartment sales aspirations than for the hotel. They state that if development costs incurred are in the order of £27m as set out the contribution of the apartments would need to be in the order of £20m+ whether this is generated by less, more or differently configured real estate units and/or a marginally altered hotel scheme.
==== PAGE 19 ====
17/01265/B Page 19 of 84
Key issues raised have included the viability approach and studies provided. They did note some inconsistencies which may have led to an assumption that certain aspects had not been considered: the most notable example being that the hotel site was included against industry benchmarks in the hotel feasibility at £726k although in the overall project assessment options appraisal a summary table presents the figure of £2.9m under the hotel only option (reflecting the overall land acquisition price). They believe neither assumption would change the conclusion on the need for alternative development to assist the viability of a hotel of this scale. They also note that some of the background calculations reviewed would, had they been included, also reinforce the case and be more consistent with planning guidelines, so these could now be revisited.
ARC conclude that there is little doubt that apartments are required to support the viability case and note there is merit in revisiting and updating the basic real estate feasibility in more detail to confirm construction costs and provide the rationale for the number and size of apartments in proportion to the hotel space in viability terms.
They state that it is not clear at this stage that there would be a significant market of investors to acquire a small boutique hotel generating limited cashflow to provide an exit. Should there be concerns regarding the long-term future of the hotel safeguards could be considered that would ensure this element remains part of the Castletown offer.
5.2 In undertaking their analysis the consultants also sought the views of Box Associates, a leading QS and project management company with extensive experience of developing hotels to input to their review of the hotel layout and proposal.
Box Associates note that: there is a distinct lack of unique features and facilities to distinguish this property from just being "another hotel building" without any "wow" factors. Consideration could be given to creating appropriate unique features in terms of art or architecture for example, in the next stage of the interior and architectural design process.
From a financial point of view the mix of hotel and apartments balance is critical and on the evidence provided there is a need for a substantial apartment element to create the value necessary to cover investment costs. The exact mix needs to be revisited and updated in the light of today's market conditions
In terms of interior design Box Associates state that the hotel work flows for the rooms, public areas, food & beverage and spa and back of house operational areas would ideally be reviewed by suitably qualified Kitchen and Back of the House consultants before finalising any interior design. The hotel design needs to be rationalised and clustered. For example, the plant room, an exercise classroom, staff room areas, entrance to spa are all either next to, or opposite bedrooms. There is not sufficient hotel storage and the 'back of house' needs to be better designed and considered and thought needs to be applied on how the hotel would be operated e.g. location of bin stores, building services (i.e. water, drainage, power etc needs to be co- ordinated between the hotel rooms and facilities on the ground floor with the apartments above, as this would impact on the layouts).
Box Associates feel that in terms of guest facilities the sea views from a number of hotel rooms on ground floor are considered to be suboptimal as they partially obscured by the topography of the site. The restaurant/banquet layouts are not appropriate for this market. If a designated banquet space for weddings and other functions (as suggested in the GVA/AY Feasibility Study) is to be included, it would be preferable to have its own dedicated footprint and identity.
Box Associates feel that the proposed siting of the hotel and apartment refuse areas do not appear to be functionally, or are aesthetically located and local food hygiene guidelines would require them to be designed into the goods receiving, storage and refuse areas (e.g. refuse would have to be carried through the car parking area in the under croft in full view of
==== PAGE 20 ====
17/01265/B Page 20 of 84
arriving/departing owners/residents). Provision is needed for fire prevention and fire-fighting systems. Access to certain employee areas appear to be through guest rooms corridors in some zones which does not correlate with an upscale product. Employee back of house areas and office space appear to be insufficient, with no employee eating/rest areas, locker rooms and showers. Delivery parking is situated in view of the guest rooms and hotel terrace and goods/deliveries would have to be barrowed around the perimeter of the restaurant building to the hotel goods entrance in the view of guests. The hotel Goods Entrance being located next to guest car parking and drop off point is sub optimal.
6 CONSULTATIONS 6.1 Malew Parish Commissioners: No objection to the application (03.01.18) and this is reiterated on 07.11.2018 and 9.7.21.
6.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services : Highway services have made a number of representations to the application resulting in various amendments to the technical aspects of the proposal. These relate to matters such as visibility splays, width of the footpath by the hotel, provision of car parking, cycle parking and electric vehicle charging points, manoeuvring space etc and the plans now accord with their requests.
In terms of the adequacy of Fort Island Road, the UK's Department for Transport, Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/04 indicates that shared use of carriageway by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and motorised users on rural roads can take low traffic flows of less than 1000 vehicles per day where speeds are less than 35mph. The single lane carriage is forecast to carry peak hour flows of 66 vehicles which are typically 10% of daily flows. On redevelopment, the traffic carrying and geometric characteristics of Fort Island road would meet the technical guidance for shared space.
A request had been made for a survey to be done on Saturday which the applicants were unable to do (due to COVID) and so used pre-existing data from Douglas Road in Castletown. Information provided in respect of weekend traffic flows indicates that these are significantly lower than the weekday peaks. The proposed development is predicted to generate a peak hourly flow of 29 two-way vehicle trips on a Saturday between 4pm and 5pm, and between 11am and 12 noon 24 two-way trips. There is an initial assessment forecast for an uplift of 37 two-way trips in the morning peak and 34 two-way trips in the afternoon peak. Highway Services considered this robust and no further analysis of weekends are necessary. They note that there are access and parking issues along Fort Island Road when there are events at the golf club - it is suggested that it is for the owners/organisers to manage access and parking in conjunction with the Police and DOI.
The proposed highway improvement scheme at the Fort Island Road/Derbyhaven Road would provide new footways and improved levels of visibility as well as on street parking at the junction. The proposal involves works to the public roads which would require a separate technical review, safety audit and Highway Agreement
It is agreed that the predicted traffic can be accommodated on Fort Island Road, Derbyhaven Road, The Promenade and Shore Road.
6.3 Manx National Heritage: MNH express interest as a neighbour of the site (owner of St. Michael's Isle). They request that at no time is access prevented or compromised to the islet or the causeway. They draw attention to the fact that the whole of St. Michael's Isle, St. Michael's Chapel and the Derby Fort are Ancient Monuments as is the promontory fort of Hango Broogh and the setting of these monuments must not be compromised in any redevelopment. They confirm that they were consulted by the applicant during the development of the scheme design and provided guidance on the preparation of the archaeological assessment and field evaluation. They are in
==== PAGE 21 ====
17/01265/B Page 21 of 84
agreement that there are no archaeological constraints that would prevent redevelopment. They would, however, request that a condition is attached to any approval requiring an archaeological watching brief whilst the site is cleared.
In the pre-application discussions, Manx National Heritage clarify that they emphasised its concerns about the potential impact on and from St. Michael's Isle and it is their view that these visual impacts are acceptable, noting that the view from St. Michael's Isle would generally benefit from a reduction in maximum height and the former swimming pool structure would also be reduced.
They note that the majority of car parking spaces are below ground, reducing the opportunity for bright colours and glazed windscreens causing glare in the open landscape, which has been a cause for concern during the consideration of the redevelopment of the adjacent golf club.
They acknowledge that the massing of the proposed building is greater than the existing and that unless carefully managed and designed, the light impact on the adjacent Dark Skies site at St. Michael's Isle could be significant.
They note the proximity of the ASSI and that the reintroduction of a use on the site would cause disturbance on the surrounding habitats although the development of the clubhouse has brought further changes in the nature of activity here. The introduction of 40 residential units would bring a greater scale of human and domestic activity and the effect on the surrounding ecology needs to be carefully considered and they recommend adherence to any conditions on the timing and method of construction as advised by DEFA.
They conclude by suggesting that as a brownfield site with significant commercial value, it is unrealistic to expect that the return of the site to nature. They consider that the existing structure has limited if any heritage value and redevelopment is positive but this should not be to the detriment of the surrounding ASSI.
In further comments dated 2.7.21 MNH state that they believe the amended planning application falls short of addressing the environmental issues surrounding the project. They comment that while the EcIA report by Wardell and Armstrong states that any influence upon the habitat and species within the ASSI would be minimal as the area to be redeveloped is outside the boundary, the ASSI surrounds the development site and therefore it is likely that the noise and dust from demolition and construction would impact on the wildlife. They note that Langness is already a popular destination during summer months making the narrow road to Fort Island difficult to navigate and feel that 40 apartments would place additional pressure on the road that may cause motorists to drive over grassland to reach their destination. MNH also feel that there may be unacceptable levels of light pollution from the development noting that the effects of light on bird breeding failure is becoming increasingly understood. They indicate that invertebrates are also effected by being 'fooled' into thinking it is daytime and using energy to collect nectar from flowers where it is unavailable as the plant is 'sleeping'. They state that nocturnal insects are also much more vulnerable to predation in areas of high light pollution.
MNH note that the Isle of Man has already lost many of its breeding bird species from The Langness, Sandwick and Derbyhaven areas including redshanks and lapwings. It is believed that this is mainly due to disturbance from members of the public, pets and a reduction in appropriate land management. The proposed development has the potential to create a great deal of disturbance during construction and onwards through to the running of the hotel and occupation of the apartments, though unintentional, it would an unavoidable aspect of everyday life.
The letter continues to state that although MNH would usually promote the redevelopment of brown field sites, this development is not straightforward and would not benefit neighbouring
==== PAGE 22 ====
17/01265/B Page 22 of 84
areas through the reuse of the redundant hotel. Ideally the site could be cleared and enhanced to achieve local biodiversity gain. While this is unlikely to be the case, MNH feel that a development of the magnitude would place too much pressure on the surrounding natural ecosystem and are therefore unable to support the application.
6.4 DEFA Ecosystems:
DEFA Ecosystems disagree with the applicant that the entire site falls outwith the ASSI in that three parts of the application site do fall within it and as such, the site in its entirety cannot be taken to be primarily brownfield or consisting of derelict buildings and with small areas of natural habitat which used to be managed but have since become semi-improved.
They accept that there is unlikely to be any adverse impact on the lesser mottled grasshopper, assuming that the blowing around of cement dust can be avoided but the ASSI was designated to cover a range of species not just restricted to that. Choughs presently nest in the building and where nest boxes are to be included in the new building, their location should be carefully chosen away from the prevailing south westerly wind. This would overcome their concern about this species.
They comment on the suggestion in the application that nesting opportunities for Hirundines would be available in the new buildings but note that it does not appear to have eaves: nest cups may provide opportunities but it may be more difficult to accommodate swallows unless there is a sheltered (roofed) position with open-walled covered areas where birds would not be a problem. Mitigation of the effect of this species is less important than that for choughs which hold greater status for protection. They recommend that demolition must not affect any active nest and must either take place when no species is using the building or where birds have been excluded from the building prior to building their nests. They recommend that during construction, a site worker should be made responsible for the minimising of disturbance to these nesting birds.
They recommend two conditions to protect the ASSI from damage. These are:
1.Prior to the commencement of any works on site, including demolition and excavation, the site and area for working must be adequately fenced off so that the area of eelgrass, areas of saltmarsh vegetation and the rock outcrop which supports lesser mottled grasshoppers is not incorporated in the working area and is, together with the adjacent Hango Broogh archaeological site, protected from damage during excavation, demolition and construction works by the storage of materials, moving of vehicles, water run-off. The applicant should consult DEFA and Manx National Heritage in this respect prior to any fencing being erected."
They also recommend that that provision is made for cats to be prohibited from being kept on the site due to the potential impact on birds and lizards.
6.5 Department for Enterprise: DfE, Visit Isle of Man, advise that it would not ordinarily comment on applications in instances where the developer has not approached them directly and on policy principle it does not normally comment on residential applications, noting that the zoning in this case is for predominantly tourist use and the application is for residential and hotel use. They confirm that
==== PAGE 23 ====
17/01265/B Page 23 of 84
the Hotel Futures Study has received Departmental approval and as part of undertaking the study, the key industry providers were interviewed and the findings of the report was presented to them.
The Department is not minded to offer a comment on the financial viability conclusions of the applicant, given that they are provided by GVA/AY who are a "well respected industry leader in such assessments" and the Department was consulted as part of their evidence gathering. They would reiterate their initial comments that they believe that this scheme goes some way to meet some of the Aims of the Destination Management Plan (DMP) in that it is considered that it could promote the Island's image and distinctive strengths to target markets and assist in creating an exceptional visitor experience.
6.6 Manx Utilities: Manx Utilities have reviewed the drainage proposals and have no objection to the new development connecting foul sewage into the public drainage network, however any public adoption of the pump station and rising main must meet with MUA requirements.
Whilst the foul drainage proposals are feasible and subject to the modifications proposed will be able to transfer foul flows to the public foul sewerage system in Derbyhaven, the general design of the pumping station including location, proposed storage and associated electrical kiosk do not comply with the requirements for public adoption as laid down in Manx Sewers for Adoption.
Manx Utilities will be content to work with the developer post planning to ensure a suitable foul pumping station meeting MUA requirements can be developed in order that public adoption can take place. If MU requirements are not met, the drainage serving the development will remain private.
6.7 Department of Infrastructure, Public Estates and Housing Division: The DOI housing division seek a commuted payment in lieu of affordable housing noting that they do not support the sale or letting of apartments to first time buyers or public sector tenants where the apartments are leasehold as costs such as ground rents and service charges place additional financial burdens on those least able to afford them
7 REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Representations have been received by a number of individuals and organisations. This report provides a summary of these by subject. Appendix 3 provides a list of parties as well as summaries separated by persons who made them.
7.2 Principle of residential development on the site:
The site is designated for Tourism, not residential development.
Tourism Proposal 1(TP1) does not include provision for any non-hotel enabling development nor does it explicitly allow for the development of the site for housing or other non-tourism related development, rather it indicates the circumstances in terms of hotel viability that must exist before the Department could consider permitting either redevelopment or re-use.
TP1 does not state that redevelopment for non-hotel uses would automatically be permitted irrespective of other relevant planning policy considerations if it can be demonstrated that hotel use is no longer viable. TP1 states that the existing hotel must be retained for hotel use. It is not a permissive policy towards any form of development other than hotel tourism. To suggest that housing redevelopment of the site is acceptable in principle because the policy does not explicitly exclude housing redevelopment is flawed. The proposal does not comply with the land use designation.
==== PAGE 24 ====
17/01265/B Page 24 of 84
TP1 needs to be read in context of the wider planning objectives. Business Policy 11 states that Tourist development must be in accordance with the sustainable objectives of the plan.
The development of forty residential apartments falls to be considered against policies relevant to housing. Strategic Policy 2 directs new development to towns and villages. It is also contrary to, Spatial Policy 5, Housing Policy 4, Transport Policy 1, General Policy 2 and does not comply with General Policy 3 as the proposed development does not reduce the impact of development on the environment.
The Strategic Plan cites that if there is any conflict between the contents of an Area Plan and the contents of the Strategic Plan the more recently approved document would prevail. The Strategic Plan 2016 is later than the Area Plan for the South therefore its sustainability objectives should prevail.
TP1 is not a designation for future development and based on the Area Plan for the South with its series of maps/plans and details of constraints, landscape and proposals it is not credible to argue that the site is not in the countryside. Derbyhaven was considered as being a settlement in the countryside where new dwellings would be unsustainable, if Derbyhaven is unsustainable then Fort Island/Langness is even more unsustainable.
There have been refusals for applications in Derbyhaven on the grounds of unsustainability.
Previous planning decisions have refused applications in Derbyhaven as detracting from the coastal character of the area and the scenic quality of the golf course.
What is proposed would create a satellite village which would nearly double the population of the area.
The hotel is a Trojan horse permitting the applicants to build apartments and sell for profit and they wish to sell the hotel at the earliest opportunity. The proposal is not a leisure/tourism-led scheme but a housing led scheme with the bulk of the overall development comprising the residential element.
They state that the argument that the development would contribute to housing figures is unsupported by compelling evidence and that there are other schemes being actively promoted.
The hotel was built before consideration of matters such as environmental protection, cultural heritage, protection of the countryside and so on. It is highly improbable that a hotel would ever have been built in this location if such matters were a consideration at that time. The site should be returned to nature which would be the most desirable for the protection of the natural environment, the coastal scenery, for respecting the adjacent historic sites and for valuing the biodiversity of the peninsular plus eliminating burden on drainage, sewerage and other services.
The development extends onto land which not currently built on and comprises mainly apartments.
A small boutique hotel (smaller than the existing building) would meet tourism objectives and minimise impact on Langness.
The reference to a commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing is vague and that the implications of these aspects have not been put forward and transparently evidenced.
It is questioned as to whether climate change has been taken into account and the increasingly stormy weather and how this will impact access and infrastructure provision and maintenance
==== PAGE 25 ====
17/01265/B Page 25 of 84
which could have a catastrophic impact on environment. There is a likelihood of the road to Fort Island becoming inaccessible unless taxpayers money is spent on sea defences.
The development fails to accord with Recreation Policy 4 in that it does not provide the 1,728 sq m of formal open space, the 576 sq m of children's play space and the 768 sq m of amenity space on site.
7.3 Viability: Criticism is levelled at the viability assessment undertaken by GVA/AY in a number of respects. Firstly whether it followed recognised and appropriate methodologies and guidance - identified in the ARC report as the RICS guidance and the Isle of Man Government 'Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreements'. Secondly the assessment is a 'market based' assessment of opportunity, rather than a Financial Viability Assessment (FVA). There is also concern that it does not follow RICS best practice of using the Residual Method; that the valuer should apply a minimum of two appropriate and recognised methods to valuing development property for each valuation project; the lack of detailed information in relation to demolition and construction costs; and no information is given about how much profit has been incorporated in their calculations.
There is concern that the Department advised that the UK National Planning Policy Framework is of no relevance on Island and that neither is 'Enabling Development and Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 4)' which they find at odds with the Strategic Plan that provides for use of external guidance where there is a gap for such on Island.
It is cited that some of the figures used in the viability assessment are confusing and/or contradictory. For example a total development cost of £7,666,544 is presented as estimated by Dandara's Quantity Surveyor, inclusive of pre-development costs, land value and professional fees, but it is also stated within the application that the applicant's total development cost/"all in build cost" would be £9,975,000.
There is concern that the land acquisition costs have been used in the viability assessment, contrary to the residual method and that this is known to be £2.9million whereas the land valuation should be in the region of £726,000.
It is considered that there is a lack of detail in the figures presented in the Financial Appraisal and some figures e.g. those for Achieved Daily Rates (ADR) are shown to be particularly pessimistic for a hotel of quality as is the valuation of a comparable hotel, shown by the financial appraisal to be £4,292,174 rather than Knight Frank's prices of between £5,380,302 and £6,230,000. The indicative range of costs supplied (£75/ft2 to £335ft2) are considered to be of no value unless it is known to which building elements they apply. The figures include almost £6million for commuted sums payable to Government and this is not broken down or explained.
All this puts doubt not only on the applicant's conclusions but that of ARC's which relied on the data submitted. ARC note there is merit in revisiting and updating the basic real estate feasibility in more detail to confirm construction costs and provide the rational for the number and size apartments in proportion to the hotel space in viability terms. Fundamentally, ARC has been unable to advise on the main key issue raised by DEFA, i.e. to question whether the viability of the mixed-use scheme (based on the submitted information and documents) has demonstrated that the level of non-hotel uses that are required to achieve a viable scheme. ARC refer to the weaknesses and flaws in the evidence supporting the viability assumptions and assertions made by the Applicant and conclude that there is merit in 'revisiting and updating' the detailed viability information.
==== PAGE 26 ====
17/01265/B Page 26 of 84
Criticism is raised at the viability assessment method of GVA/AY in terms of calculating viability using a three year exit strategy especially when 5 years shows a notable uplift from year 3 and that some hotel operators would want to develop the site as a long term investments opportunity.
The test of viability must not be constrained by considering purely FIDL's development approach when another developer or investor's methodology may be entirely focussed on creating a viable hotel development. It is reasonable to assume that grant assistance might be available to another owner/operator therefore could be validly incorporated in a viability assessment. A standalone hotel could be viable if some appropriate adjustments are made to the key elements of the appraisal.
In response to comments that "It is not clear at this stage that there would be a significant market of investors willing to acquire a small boutique hotel generating limited cashflow to provide an exit." (ARC) this contradicts Saville's 2020 report which shows interest in coastal and country hotels has surged.
The number of recent hotel developments on the Island demonstrates that investors have been prepared to develop schemes that they consider are viable, despite some of the handicaps presented by a seasonal hotel market. They name Mannin Hotel which is £65/night winter and £108/night summer, the Comis which is £107/night winter and £143/night in summer; the Premier Inn £49/night in winter and summer; the Ramsey Park Hotel £89/night winter and £119/night in summer; the Halvard in Douglas where rooms range from £100/£150 to £210/£290 (Halvard Suite); and Brightlife Spa, Andreas at £270/night which is a high quality spa development completed a number of years ago and where it is understood that their rooms are booked up 5 months ahead.
It is argued that a long-term investment option is available for the application site, but it has not been considered by the applicant because it does not fit with their speculative business model.
In terms of the consideration of potential viability it is necessary for there to be evidence that there is no market interest in the application site/property as a long-term opportunity for a leisure operator. Such evidence would need to be based on a realistic active marketing exercise of the application site/premises.
There is no evidence of any open market testing or marketing of the application site as a hotel opportunity and as such there is no evidence that the site would not be of commercial interest to other potential developers or operators of a hotel.
A counter offer has been submitted by a third party who have experience in the operation of tourist accommodation in the form of a boutique hotel, large family resort as well a short course (all in South Africa) in addition to the Castletown Golf Links.
Interactions with the applicant date back to early 2012 where it became clear that they were committed to a residential development on the hotel site at all costs. It is common knowledge that LGCL has sought to acquire the hotel and site over time and it was their intention to restore the functional and operational links between the hotel site and the golf course with the two elements operation collectively as a high quality leisure and tourism facility. A cash offer was made to the then owners in December 2011, which was rejected and the site was then sold to the applicant Fort Island Development Limited (FIDL). LGCL then presented two options to FIDL as a joint venture or to purchase the site for the same acquisition cost in 2011, neither of which was accepted. Sunningdale Investments Limited were approached in 2013 with a cash offer for their 50% and in 2015 FIDL were approached with a cash offer for the land and buildings plus 20% uplift in the 2011 acquisition costs.
==== PAGE 27 ====
17/01265/B Page 27 of 84
In terms of viability, the application contains no reference to alternatives of joint investment, despite LGCL over several years, offering long term investment in the site with the financial capability and operational expertise to deliver, manage and operate an appropriate hotel/leisure facility here. In addition the information provided does not guarantee the future operation of the site as a hotel in terms of its economic viability.
Two further offers have been made to purchase the hotel site and all other land owned by the applicants or for them to enter into a joint venture combining assets on Langness Peninsula to develop a holistic tourism offering of a boutique hotel and leisure facility on the site that would be capable of attracting engagement of both off island visitors and our local community. It would reunite the hotel and golf clubhouse business models, invest to achieve a balanced facility to attract local and off-island engagement to reduce seasonality challenges. They would review the position of the hotel in terms of whether it should be on another part of the golf course taking into account climate change, public drainage and sewer infrastructure, traffic and the Langness ecosystems. It would be an owner/management run facility.
The submission provides details of operating costs and yields of approximately 5% based on a build cost of £9million and land purchase, professional fees and infrastructure cost of £3million. They believe this can be achieved because they propose a long term investment approach, as evidenced by the investment they have put into the adjacent golf course, plus the greater ratio of equity to debt (and no reliance on debt funding). They set out ways that there would be running cost synergies if the hotel and golf course ran together; maintenance, reception, management staff plus offers for guests and members.
The offers have expired but should be a material consideration against the applicant's contention that a hotel on the site is only commercially viability with a large residential development of 40 apartments. The offer for purchase is based on the value of the hotel site as £736,000 for the vacant hotel site and £500,000 for the remainder of the FIDL land on Langness.
In other instances on the Island where a landowner has argued lack of commercial viability that has been subject to requirement for proof that there is nobody else who might reasonably develop the site under its current zoning. For example at Glen Helen, (14/00882/A) an appeal inspector rejected the applicant's justification for redeveloping the hotel for apartments on the basis that the hotel was not viable on the basis that there had been no marketing of the property or firm evidence of having tried to sell it and no evidence of alternative forms of tourist accommodation on the site.
It is argued that commercial viability should relate to the issue of whether a change of zoning should be allowed and this should not be based on the profit requirements of the landowner which is what the viability assessment is based on. There is no overriding national need for a hotel on the site that would justify breaching the Island's planning policy framework to finance it; especially as additional major hotels have opened or re-opened since the planning application was submitted.
A longer period for return is not unreasonable nor a trophy project. It is noted that UK transactions in 2020 showed over £1billion of investment from high net worth individuals and family offices and that as a general rule these do take a longer term investment view compared to the short term approach of FIDL and its advisors.
In terms of the design of the hotel, there lacks any submission from a proposed hotel operator. The fact that GVA/AY advised FIDL on the hotel layout and design as part of their submission means later comments cannot be seen to be unbiased.
The hotel proposed is not considered to be a 'best in class' destination as suggested it ought to be and other best in class hotels are cited noting that geographical location of the application
==== PAGE 28 ====
17/01265/B Page 28 of 84
site is every bit as good as 'best in class' hotels both in terms of attractive surroundings, its accessibility - quicker to get there by plane than some areas in the UK. The Isle of Man has a far greater population and preferential tax rate, than the Isle of Islay which supports The Machrie.
The proposal is considered to be a sub-optimal offering and this contracts GVA/AY's suggestion that the quality of the product, provision of a destination hotel and spa would be crucial in driving demand. Some of the criticisms of the hotel design are set out in the ARC report.
The Island is in need of function venues capable of accommodating larger events, in this case, the facilities are located some distance from the hotel and the hotel kitchens, without toilets and which would result in the loss of car parking spaces if in use. There is no bridal suite nor separate meeting rooms for business meetings although this is mentioned in the applicant's Planning Statement. Having initially suggested weddings could be hosted in an outside tent, they now suggested these be given over to their competitors. In response to concerns about spa facilities the applicants state that sea views are not important and that yoga can be held outdoors, presumably this would be in the car park given the limited space around the hotel site. Views which were previously available to users of the former hotel are not available in the new scheme and the apartments are likely to keep the open area of the hotel dark for most of the day. The proposal carries no wow factor and would be an opportunity missed.
For the advantages of a mixed use scheme there are disadvantages and they have been traditionally been considered to be higher risk/less attractive investments due to the ownership complications, and service charges recovered from multiple parties whose interests may not coincide - the hotel operator and apartment owners in this case.
The intention to sell the hotel at the earliest opportunity shows a lack of commitment to the future success of the hotel element and this is reflected in its design which is limited to the ground floor with views across the car park. Only a few hotel rooms have unrestricted sea views comparable to the upper floor apartments. The reception areas have limited space which would restrict the hotel's ability to facilitate such functions as weddings and conferences which would surely be an attractive source of income.
The viability argument is based primarily on development terms and little evidence has been presented to demonstrate its operational sustainability. The planning statement is silent as to the level of financial commitment and management support to be provided by the applicant until such time that a suitable buyer is found. The residential use does not guarantee continued financial input into the hotel.
It is stated that there are no safeguards or guarantees put in place that would secure the continued use of the hotel and not allow for a subsequent change of use, which is realistic given the concerns that the hotel design and competing apartments from a revenue perspective materialise. While it is argued that the hotel and the apartments could be mutually beneficial in terms of supporting each other it is argued that the apartments could be used on a B and B basis and because of their greater space and views would be a better offer undermining the hotel.
GVA/AY's report refers to refers to competition, this is apparently contradictory given that the applicants developed one of the schemes themselves (the Premier Inn) suggesting that there is demand for both.
7.4 Visual/Impact on Landscape:
The proposal is for a much larger building than the existing and would be an overdevelopment of site. The building would too large with an associated unacceptable visual impact.
==== PAGE 29 ====
17/01265/B Page 29 of 84
The size of the development is out of keeping with its situation. It is larger than the apartment building, Key West, in Douglas and Langness is surely not suitable for this type of development.
The size, scale and massing is significantly greater than the existing. 60% more than the original.
The development should be considered in its fullest context and that the overall volume should be considered as the casual observer would not know of the enclosed courtyard.
A 121% larger building by volume cannot but fail to have a significant impact on landscape and visual impact.
Proposal does not comply with Landscape Proposal 22
The area is low lying with low level landscape and an area of outstanding natural beauty and that the visual impact would be enormous and overbearing particularly from Fort Island itself and from Derbyhaven Bay as well as from further afield.
The additional mass and volume would detract from the sites of the Ancient Monuments alongside the site, would dominate one of the most iconic view on the Island, from Derbyhaven village to St. Michael's Isle, and be contrary to Environment Policy 40.
The LVIA understates the impact on St Michael's Isle and Hango Broogh. The setting of the ancient monuments would be prejudiced to an unacceptable degree - all in conflict with the policies of the Strategic Plan. No visualisation has been provided from Hango Broogh from where the visual impact would be considerable.
The visual impressions include greying out of elements of the scheme do not give a true representation of the impact which would be far greater than what is shown.
The methodology for the LVIA is misleading with photographs failing to properly present the human eye's perspective of the development from various viewpoints and no and information given on the camera lens used. A 100mm lens provides for a more honest representation of the mass of the existing building.
Representations of the visual impact are disingenuous. The applicant's images of before and after development are not directly comparable in terms of perspective and provide an unrealistic and potentially misleading comparison.
Concern is expressed that the existing tower, which is not indicative of the overall height of the existing building has been taken as the guide to the overall height of the proposed building and what is proposed would double the visual impact of the building as viewed by local residents.
Alternative imagery from objectors has been submitted to show key viewpoints within and close to the golf course and a number of rights of way.
Users of the golf course should be considered in the same way as the public. General Policy 2 states that development should not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan. There is potential for the development to significantly devalue the special landscape characteristics and setting of the golf course by such a large and strident building. Any form of development that is significantly larger in terms of area and/or volume must inevitably have a significantly greater landscape impact and adversely affect the sense of openness of the area, notwithstanding the nature of design and/or palette of materials. The applicant's own figures show the proposed development would have a volume 121% greater than the existing which is relevant if considering the exception in
==== PAGE 30 ====
17/01265/B Page 30 of 84
General Policy 3 (c) previously development land which allows for redevelopment; where the redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment.
If the development is assessed against General Policy 2, it would fail criterion (e) in that it does adversely affect public views of the sea.
It was hoped a new and attractive hotel would stand in place of the wreck of the existing but new design which does not reflect the flavour of the architecture of the Isle of Man and exceeds the existing footprint. The visual impact is of a much larger group of buildings which would be a very unpleasant site from St. Michael's Isle as well as further afield. They suggests that St. Michael's Isle is of particular importance for its stunning views and rich history and the Hango Broogh would be adversely affected by any increase in size and bulk.
It is essential that this derelict site is properly developed as it is an eyesore on the landscape. However, the present plans do not do justice to either the historic St. Michael's Isle or the preservation of a site of natural beauty. The proposed development is "a group of portacabins and sea containers bolted together".
The building has been allowed to dilapidate and argue that this is likely in the hope of any development to be seen as an improvement and/or the zoning be changed to residential. An order should be made to demolish the building in 12 months with gardens being created in its place until an appropriate way to develop the site is found.
The applicant should not be rewarded with a favourable consent to remove the blight. The proposed building would be unsympathetic in the landscape with little regard to the natural contours.
15 - 20 apartments would be more appropriate.
Anything more than a small hotel here would spoil this wonderful area for ever and a "pile of boxes" would not fit in with the beautiful scenery.
A small cafe would be the best use of this site.
While existing building offers little to enhance the locality, the proposal would be too prominent and represent a "far too permanent intensive use of the site in the future".
The architectural design gives nothing to this sensitive site.
The proposed modern and urban style of the building is inappropriate for the location.
It is an ugly large building block.
The materials should enable the building to blend into the surroundings not stand out as they would.
The applicant objected to the proposal by LGCL (12/00443/B) for a 3 storey building on the grounds that given its height and appearance the proposed building would have an adverse impact on this sensitive location, that the setting merits a more imaginative high quality building and that the height would harm the outlook from and the environment within the hotel. If 3 storeys was too big, then 5 storeys must be.
The scheme does not include any tree planting or other landscaping treatments which could normally reduce or mitigate landscape impacts over time.
==== PAGE 31 ====
17/01265/B Page 31 of 84
7.5 Dark Skies: St Michael's Isle is a Dark Skies site. The development has potential for an adverse impact through excessive and inappropriate lighting. Passive motion sensor lighting seldom works effectively and is frequently activated by wildlife and certain weather conditions which would negate any perceived benefits.
The lighting would result in a huge glowing mass which is inappropriate for the landscape made up of one of the island top wildlife sites and an international golf course.
7.6 Ecological: The application would have an adverse impact on the natural landscape where there are 8 Ancient Monuments and three Registered Buildings as well as the quadruple designated landscape incorporating the Langness, Derbyhaven and Sandwick ASSI, the Derbyhaven, Langness and Fort Island and foreshores adjoining Bird Sanctuary, the Biosphere Terrestrial Core Zone and the Langness Marine Nature Reserve.
The site also lies within the proposed qualifying Southern Coasts and Calf of Man RAMSAR site which, cumulatively, demand the highest order or precaution, protection and management (enhancement of the natural assets) which is not met by the proposed development. The site should be restored to a green field status and no necessity has been given for the development in accordance with Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 5.
The Island is signatory to the Convention to the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the Manx Marine Environmental Assessment 2013 found that the gully to the east of the causeway is one such important habitat considered to be of regional importance and merits protection.
If National Heritage Areas were designated, as provided for in the Strategic Plan, this would be one and this justifies a high level of protection. The development falls short in respect of actions to protect and justify Biosphere status.
The IOM has become party to the Convention of Biological Diversity which commits the Island to reducing the direct pressures on biodiversity and promoting sustainable use and also to improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity. The development adds to the pressures on biodiversity and threatens the status of habitats and species. The proposed mitigation is inadequate and fails to recognise that the hotel and associated apartments would in combination with current recreational pressure be highly detrimental to the "Special Interest" of Langness.
The EIA is "woefully deficient" and may have misled the applicant into submitting an application which fails to take into account the environmental significance of the site including the considerable potential of the site as an eco-tourism destination.
Insufficient attention to the development's long term implications such as the impact of excessive lighting negative to where behaviour can been changed through the introduction of artificial levels of illumination.
The impact of development in the EcIA uses a comparison of existing and proposed populations with the parish of Malew which shows minimal impact of a 1.92% increase in activity, whereas a more realistic comparison would be with Derbyhaven which would show a doubling of the population.
The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal does not recognise the Island's nation status as it shows the avifauna merely to be of local importance rather than an asset of national importance within the context of the Island nation. It is necessary to prepare a review of the nationally
==== PAGE 32 ====
17/01265/B Page 32 of 84
important, unique assemblage of migratory and wintering birds using the site and impact zone to properly complete the assessment of avifauna.
There are a number of inaccuracies and misspellings in the references to birds which cast doubt on the expertise of those involved in the assessment. More than a single, winter visit to the area is necessary to fully understand the ecology of the area.
Concern that the fact that nests found could not be described more specifically than "hirundine" and that fewer than the full number of species have been recorded within the 2km radius (78 species are listed whereas there are 201 species within the 2km radius). Ringed Plover is not included, which is listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Act and neither is the Grey Plover.
Lights from the building could inadvertently attract passing Manx shearwaters. The EIA should have picked up the potential damage to this species and should damage occur, this is likely to be highly publicised. Any building should be below the skyline as viewed from the sea and the applicant is encouraged to introduce a rat eradication scheme similar to that on the Calf of Man in the hope that Manx shearwaters would return to the peninsula to breed.
The EIA did not identify whether nests found were those of a house martin or swallow; nor did it identify active nests; nor curlew and kittiwake as nesting birds when they are not in this location, it underestimates the impact of increased usage of the surrounding area by people and animals, it relied upon other developments' surveys and did not suggest mitigation or action should species be found during works.
The applicant should provide an ex-gratia payment to Manx Birdlife in recognition of the work done correcting information in respect of the application and their suggestions for eco-tourism development which would be more appropriate here. One could have a hotel and associated field study centre which, if it included a large function room, could be used for weddings.
The foreshore should not be accepted as fulfilling the requirement for protection or enhancement of landscape and ecological quality as required by Strategic Policy 4 and wildlife exclusion zones should be introduced with associated signage advising people not to walk along the foreshore.
The intertidal zone is more than "shingle/cobbles" and it is incorrect to state that Schedule 1 protected birds are not dependent upon this habitat. The effects on wintering birds of the development are not temporary as this takes no account of the additional recreational pressure created by doubling the population of Derbyhaven.
The development would affect the most iconic Manx bird species - Manx shearwater, red-billed chough, pale bellied Brent goose, ringed plover, house martins as well as grey seals and the lesser mottled grasshopper. There is no reference to the runway extension and other threats to wildlife from walkers, divers, runners, off-road cyclists, water skiers, kite and wind surfers all of which contribute to the cumulative impact of the development and which have not been considered.
Cats and uncontrolled animals must be banned, although it is considered unrealistic to use a S13 Agreement to restrict the ownership of cats as it would rely on the residents' management committee to enforce. Dogs not on leads pose the same risk to bird and wildlife. There should be a ban on dog walking between Hango Broogh and Stinky Dubb.
The lack of amenity provided by the development to the residents would cause the residents to use the bay, the golf course and the adjacent archaeological site as their local amenity. An increase in people on the site may encourage further erosion of the fragile banks.
==== PAGE 33 ====
17/01265/B Page 33 of 84
Mitigation against impacts on birds may be possible with a ban on all activity on the beach head between the site and Derbyhaven with the erection of suitable screens and provision of wardens to ensure that the public and contractors do not disturb birds during the construction process along with the avoidance of loud noises above high tides during construction.
Pipistrelle and Lesser noctule bats are in the area.
A different method for the disposal of surface water must be found to avoid the outfall of organic and man-made chemicals onto the protected foreshore and into the bay.
If the development does go ahead there should be an independently managed compensatory fund established by the applicant to provide adequate resources to prevent and remediate threats to breeding and wintering birds and habitats. The Biosphere status of the Island has not been recognised or fulfilled in the proposal. A contribution to a warden may assist mitigating adverse impacts and would show a long term commitment by the applicant to the protection of the area.
Native species only should be introduced for landscaping of the site (not sea buckthorn which is an invasive species).
If the application is approved in spite of the nationally important ecology then conditions should be imposed with respect to a valid study on the impact of wintering and migratory wildfowl and waders; the provision of a fund to warden and enforce conservation byelaws; a method statement to deal with polluted silt and oil; a planting plan; the establishment of an ecological clerk of works (noting the gap between the EIA and what information is provided to contractors).
Small scale hotel developments on sensitive sites on islands can show how it should be done e.g. the Green Solution House in Bornholm. Reference is given to five sustainable tourism principles - adopting an ecosystem-based approach in tourism development planning; managing impacts on biodiversity to achieve an overall positive contribution; designing with nature so hotels blend into their natural landscape and enhance it; respecting, involving and supporting local communities; and building collaboration among stakeholders. These principles have not been adopted in this instance and rather than taking into account the sensitive nature of the site has offered it as a playground for new residents.
The ARC report is unimaginative and takes no account of the role of the site in a recognised high quality landscape and ecosystem, in making a small high quality hotel viable. It was based on averages and this is not an average site.
Concern is expressed at the routing of the surface water run-off into the gully to the north east of the plan as this gully contains eelgrass which would be adversely affected by the change in salinity of the water and an increase in sedimentation. The loss of eelgrass would be a loss of amenity to the diving and snorkelling communities who regularly access the site to observe and record the marine creatures there. Eelgrass, they suggest is increasingly rare and provide a nursery for small fish. Discharging the surface water to Derbyhaven Bay would have less impact as there is no eelgrass and no prospect of it. Consideration should also be given to the prevention of damaging sediment being allowed to enter the gully.
No objection to the old buildings being revamped but inflicting such a large development next to an ASSI and a bird sanctuary is "stupidity". The apartments should be removed from the scheme. The environment, wildlife and dark skies should be protected.
7.7 Traffic/Access and Parking:
==== PAGE 34 ====
17/01265/B Page 34 of 84
The amount of traffic which would be generated would not be able to be satisfactorily accommodated on the existing roads.
Increased traffic on Fort Island Road gives rise to concerns related to safety. There is no pavement on Fort Island Road and when vehicles are parked on the road this increases congestion on the narrow road.
17 of the 27 checkpoint locations or 63% of the time the road width is less than 3.4m which is far removed from the benchmarks used in the TAA.
Existing golf club traffic already speeds along here, making pedestrian use of the road dangerous and the addition of the traffic from the development would make this worse.
Disagree that Fort Island Road is a quiet road. Additional traffic would place undue strain. The TAA suggests Fort Island Road can carry peak hour flows of 66 vehicles in respect of a single lane width which is not supported by any practical and site-specific observations or studies. Fort Island Road is distinguishable from other access roads referred to in the TAA as it leads to an end destination and is not a thoroughfare. Other hotels used as geographical comparators for the TAA differ in nature for various reasons that renders reference to them useless. The differences cited include their locations being near or on the edge of towns, or a main road, access to them being by a thoroughfare and not a dead end, and the dates of the surveys.
The TAA suggests weekend road usage by all users would be lower based upon a historic assessment on the Douglas Road in Castletown. These assumptions don't stack up for Fort Island Road which is used more frequently in leisure time, and assuming the hotel does achieve the 30 events per annum, including weddings, it is likely that a good number of these would take place on Saturdays which would make it perfectly feasible that in excess of 300 cars would be parked in the vicinity - not taking account of other leisure users.
The likely demand for facilities would peak on a Saturday which coincides with the busiest time for the golf course and clubhouse, particularly when competitions are being held (e.g. a recent one with 174 entrants and all associated support staff).
Fort Island Road's unique situation on a peninsula and in an ASSI gives rise to significant non car use including hikers, dog walkers, children with push bikes, horse riders, cyclist, and bird watcher etc which makes it different from the comparable sites in the TAA.
The Transport Assessment suggests that the average traffic generated by the residential portion is based upon twenty four dwellings whereas the development is for forty 2 and 3 bed units.
The timing assessment for journeys fails to take into account the waiting time for drivers allowing other vehicles to pass at narrow parts and the capacity of the road is reduced for this reason.
A by-pass should be created.
Suggest the hotel element is removed. Do not believe the hotel would be viable and this element of the scheme would create the most traffic, particularly bus and coach traffic. They believe that the majority of residents would accept a smaller scale scheme with no traffic improvements at the junction.
Too few parking spaces are provided by citing that spaces for hotel staff are not included, space for golfers as per a previous planning application are not included nor are there spaces
==== PAGE 35 ====
17/01265/B Page 35 of 84
for staff working in the apartments. Photographs of parking by golfers is presented as an example of problems on site.
The location is not served by public transport which in turn means that the parking needs are greater than other areas. There would be a lack of parking for non-residents and this would cause conflict between golfers and visitors.
There is insufficient parking provided for the development. They are critical at the lack of protected, undercover parking for guests, given the prevailing weather and provide photographs of the existing damage being done to the verges alongside Fort Island Road and they suggest that there should be proper sea defences in place before any further development is allowed.
No account has been taken of the impact for the demolition of the hotel and bringing in of construction materials, particularly on the adjacent golf course, and if the road needs to be closed off for any reason who would bear the losses to that business.
Concern at the efficacy and safety of the proposed highway improvements around the junction of Fort Island and Derbyhaven Roads, particularly for coaches, and that it does not refer to parked vehicles which reduce the available width of the road as well as other parts of the road network.
Concerned by the proposed footpath which is proposed to be introduced alongside their property which sits on the south western side of the junction of the Derbyhaven and Fort Island Roads and is concerned about potential water ingress from the roadside. Cannot see how their historic door step would be incorporated into the footpath.
Concerned about the impact of construction traffic and reports that when the bus used to come to Derbyhaven, as well as when HGVs pass the house, it shakes. The alterations to the highway are not necessary and would take away well used on street parking for local residents.
Brake failure of lorries coming from the site could result in damage to property, coaches would have to swing out around a blind corner to accommodate the junction and that properties have square, not rounded corners as shown in the proposed plans.
Reference is made to change in sea levels and the Government study 'National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion' and that Derbyhaven Bay is the 6th most at risk. The ranking is without there being residential development on the site and if there were then the potential economic and environmental damage would result in an increased risk consideration which would push it up the ranking.
The transport assessment has omitted to refer to the veterinary business on Shore Road which is busy and where vehicles have been damaged through parked vehicles restricting the width of the carriageway.
The development would have an impact on the operation of the golf course in terms of traffic and the need to wait for it to pass before playing a ball, parking and use of the course as amenity space. All of these factors impact on the attractiveness of the golf course as a tourist proposition. In addition the relocation of parking to an area of green space would be near the 18th green. They feel that there is a likelihood of golf balls hitting cars and feel that the positioning of them should be refused on health and safety grounds as well as the impact of the parking on views from the golf holes.
The increase in traffic through Derbyhaven would be detrimental to the area detracting from the amenity value of the area, especially tourism, thus making an otherwise viable boutique
==== PAGE 36 ====
17/01265/B Page 36 of 84
hotel difficult to run profitably. The increase in traffic would make the popular walk from Castletown to Derbyhaven, already a 30pmh zone, dangerous.
Concerned that further parking restrictions may be brought in as a result of the development together with the proposed alterations to the junction.
Delivery vehicles and coaches would park in front of the hotel bedrooms facing St. Michael's Isle which is unfortunate.
The overtopping of The Promenade leads to its closure periodically.
The trip rates for HGVs for hotel and apartments should be separated.
7.8 Drainage: Details of the drainage works to refurbish the pumping station and sections of the rising main are not provided and without which it is not possible to assess the impact on the environment, whether protection against erosion is required and the impact on ecology and visual impact.
Concern is raised that the existing private sewerage pipe is not adequate in size and that the drainage system had limited capacity. Whilst the application seeks to refurbish the existing foul pumping station and have it adopted by Manx Utilities it is noted that the design, construction and land ownership of where the drains are installed have not yet been agreed.
The ES does not satisfactorily deal with either the impact of the foul and surface water drainage on the ecology of the area. A coastal change vulnerability assessment should be provided which would set out and consider the risks and consequences associated with the development, including all drainage infrastructure and without it the Department would not be able to take a decision on material matters, in accordance with EP9 and EP11.
Concern is raised about drainage and erosion in respect of the proposed location of the pumping station on the beach as well as potential pollution through surface water run-off and wonder why a SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage System) with petrol interceptors has not been considered. Breaching of either the pumping station or the pumping main could give rise to extensive pollution and such risk would pass to the public purse.
Concern about impact of surface water discharge where there are Eel Grass beds and concerned that the Reno mattress would not be as effective given predicted rising sea levels.
7.9 Other: Application should require the applicant to ensure that the public right of way will continue to have appropriate signage, be kept open at all times and that sufficient clearance be allowed between the development and the beach head to ensure that the walking experience continues to be at least as pleasant as it currently is.
8 ASSESSMENT 8.1 The issues to be considered in the determination of this application are as follows:
The principle
The Hotel Offer
The landscape visual impact
Impact on Heritage Assets
Environmental Matters
==== PAGE 37 ====
17/01265/B Page 37 of 84
ecology and wildlife
flood risk and drainage
noise
Traffic, highway safety and parking
8.2 The Principle of Development The starting point in the consideration of a planning application is the Development Plan, which in this instance comprises the Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the South 2013. The relevant policies have been referred to above but it is worth reiterating Tourism Proposal 1.
Tourism Proposal 1: The following hotels have been identified as important to tourism and must be retained for hotel use: the Castletown Golf Links; the Sefton Express Airport Hotel; the Cherry Orchard; and the Falcon's Nest Hotel. Proposals for redevelopment or re-use would not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that hotel use is no longer commercially viable.
It is not in dispute that the site is allocated for development under Tourism Proposal 1 (TP1) and therefore the principle of a hotel development is acceptable, subject to compliance with other policies within the plan. However there is question over the acceptability of residential development at this location.
The applicant's arguments are that the site is allocated for tourism development 'unless it can be demonstrated that hotel use is no longer commercially viable', which they take to mean that if tourism development is not viable then some other form of development would be and this could be solely residential. However, in order to meet the desire to build a hotel, they propose one, but this can only be supported if there is some form of enabling development. The proposal to use residential development to help enable the policy outcome is better than the fall-back position of an alternative use with no hotel element.
They also argue that as the site has an allocation it is not countryside and that on this basis the policies that direct new development to existing defined settlements are not relevant. They feel that even if the site was not allocated for development as it constitutes 'previously developed land' its redevelopment would accord with General Policy 3 that provides for exceptions to building on land not allocated for development.
While Environment Policy 1 states that the countryside comprises all land which is outside the defined settlements or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan, this should be read in the context of paragraph 7.2.3. 'In order to ensure that the varying demands on the countryside and coastline are complementary and to reflect its importance as an entity, the general policy set out in Environment Policy 1 has been adopted. In exceptional circumstances, where development is required in the countryside and on the coast, the need will normally be identified and assessed through the development plan process. Such a need might arise where development is required to meet housing and employment provisions which could not be met within existing settlements or to provide facilities of strategic importance for agriculture, leisure, tourism or transport or to serve needs of local communities where a rural location is required.' This is therefore taken to mean that the allocation for hotel purposes reflects what its current planning use is and the desire for it to become a hotel again. That is the 'need' identified. It should not be taken to mean that the site, which is clearly outside of the defined settlements, could be used for any purposes. Notably EP1 defines the countryside 'for the purposes of this policy' and re-emphasises that development in the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms.
==== PAGE 38 ====
17/01265/B Page 38 of 84
The site is not in or near a defined settlement nor is the site allocated for residential development and as such the residential element of the proposal is contrary to policies that direct new development to those areas.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the site would have been selected as a new residential site under the site selection criteria in the Area Plan for the South had the site been put forward for such under the call for sites. If it was then the site would have been regarded as having a critical constraint in terms of being adjacent to nationally designated sites. While the site would get points for being a brownfield site, it would have also scored poorly on a number of other criteria and possibly failed other critical constraints. The site selection criteria is listed in Appendix 4.
Although one of the other hotels mentioned in the proposal, the Cherry Orchard has been given approval partial change of use to residential use it lies within the settlement of Port Erin and therefore complies with the other spatial policies set out in the Strategic Plan.
There have been a number of appeal decisions for residential development in the area. Some are historic and pre-date the both the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the South which undermines their continued relevance, other appeal decisions are both for and against development reflecting the slightly contradictory definition of Derbyhaven as being in a predominantly residential area and its exclusion from being a site in the countryside worthy of infilling. The Inspector's report from the Area Plan for the South provides some illumination in this respect. He states that 'the existing group of properties in the settlement are not sustainable with few local facilities, there is no reasonable argument for local housing as it is close to Castletown.' While the report refers to Derbyhaven and not the application site, it is clear that the application site is further from facilities which makes it less sustainable and more reliant on car based travel.
The Strategic Plan does promote the re-use of previously developed land in Strategic Policy 1 by optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; ensuring the efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services. The proposed development only partly meets this aim.
General Policy 3, which is applicable to land which is "outside of those areas which are zoned for development", allows for development of previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building - which this site does but this is caveated in two ways, firstly that the continued use is redundant. Certainly the current building is redundant, but arguably the use of the site for hotel purposes is not so. Secondly that the proposed redevelopment should reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment. These elements are subject to further analysis below, however the development proposed arguably does not reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or wider environment.
Notably in the definition of Previously Developed Land in the Strategic Plan it makes clear that 'There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed.'
It is therefore concluded that the residential development of itself is both directly contrary to the Development Plan and the aims and objectives therein.
In terms of viability, the applicant's consultants GVA/AY have set out an industry accepted approach to assessing the proposal from a property developer's commercial perspective and
==== PAGE 39 ====
17/01265/B Page 39 of 84
this concludes that a standalone hotel is not justifiable economically. This view is supported by the ARC report commissioned by the Department who confirm that a standalone hotel is unlikely to provide the required returns for a typical hotel investor to warrant pursuing. The applicants refer to the policy that uses the term 'commercially viable' arguing that other options put forward as trophy projects is not what is meant by the policy and is unrealistic.
The Hotel Futures Study refers to there being a need, if a hotel is to be developed in such a way, for there to be enabling development. The Study was undertaken with input from industry (including the applicant's parent company). The Study notes that 'The Castletown Golf Links Hotel on the Langness Peninsula closed in 2007. It was purchased in 2012 by Fort Island Developments, part of the Isle of Man based property development company Dandara Group, for a reportedly £2.5 million. The company is reportedly currently progressing a £20 million project to create a boutique hotel and residential development on the site.'
Consequently, irrespective of the allocation of the site in the Area Plan for the South (2013), the applicant always intended to redevelop the site for hotel and residential purposes.
Nevertheless the Isle of Man Hotel Futures Report also acknowledges that hotel development does not stack up from a purely property development point of view as end values for completed hotels are likely to be less than the land and build costs leaving a developer without an exit route.
The Study indicates that the market on the Island is challenging and the national and international hotel brands have set criteria that they apply in identifying target locations. The Isle of Man does not conform to any of these, so would have to be viewed as a one-off opportunity. Most would want a major town or city with a population of at least 100,000 for example to support a new hotel of 100+ rooms.
However the Hotel Future Report does also acknowledge the development of some hotels on and off island by long term investors/operators and therefore this is an option.
While a third party has expressed a desire to develop a hotel here, it is not for a decision maker to simply prefer the idea of another development otherwise offers of alternative forms of development could be used a basis for objection in many instances.
However in the case where an application seeks an alternative use to tourism, but the policy seeks the site be retained for tourism unless it is not financially viable the marketing of a site has been taken as evidence of interest in the site. Such applications inevitably result in some analysis of whether the sale price is reasonable or inflated in terms of hope value. It is acknowledged that the site has not been marketed openly for its designated purpose and consequently has not been tested to see if there is other interest. Instead the application has sought to show, in commercial terms, that such a proposal would not be viable.
All parties agree that a small boutique hotel could be successful here - that there is enough business for it to turn an operating profit - so this appears to be about build costs.
The question is whether the need for a hotel is so overarching that other policy considerations can be discounted.
8.3 The Hotel Offer: The GVA/AY report undertakes an analysis of hotel demand and gaps in the market noting by way of example that there is a need for upscale wedding venues and there is a lack of venues for an average wedding which has 100-150 guests. It was also noted that there was a gap in the market for corporate events, albeit noting that Mount Murray was closed at the time of their research.
==== PAGE 40 ====
17/01265/B Page 40 of 84
The report notes that the hotel proposed should be a good quality, destination hotel that provides an offering unmatched on the Island. It states that destination restaurant and spa are key components to drive demand outside the peak season. It suggests the fitness room should be large enough to accommodate a small non-resident membership level.
GVA/AY comment on the proposed plans indicating that they consider the offer reasonable.
It is not considered that the final plans address or meet the suggestions of a good quality destination hotel with an offering unmatched on the Island. The spa is small and save for the pool, unremarkable. Advantages of views are not taken up for the spa area or pool, the fitness room indicates space for 3 running machines, two bikes, two step machines and one bench press which would not be enough for a non-resident membership. The proposal does not provide for a room for weddings and certainly not for 100 guests, instead suggesting the restaurant could be used for this, or the walled car parking area could be used for marquees for larger events. This is unlikely to be suitable, it would displace the hotel parking - and there is no-where else for guests to park, and would be likely to result in such noise nuisance to residents that such events could be prevented, either from Environmental Health, or by the management committee for the site.
The conclusions of Box Associates in terms of the fit out are quite damning, suggesting the rooms are not large, many do not benefit from the views and the layout is not very workable.
Whilst internal fit-out can change, the hotel as proposed will always be constrained by the building design. That is, it cannot be extended up or out and therefore much of the layout could not be altered to meet different operating needs.
Had the hotel development been led by a future operator/investor then the design may have benefited from a real vision to make the hotel one that is really unique and which would be needed to make it a real destination hotel which would attract visitors from afar.
8.4 The landscape visual impact. Landscape criteria from the Area Plan for the South is set out in Landscape Proposal 22. This sanctions built development but provides location specific advice on how it should be achieved. The interpretation of LP22 is important: 'The design of any new or replacement buildings on Langness should be such as not to increase significantly their landscape impact and should be so designed as to respect the location of and facilitate public access to the promontory fort on Langness known as Hango Broogh'.
The Wardell Armstrong EIA includes a landscape and visual impact assessment. It acknowledges that the site is in a sensitive location and is subject to higher design standards than would normally be required, with particular need for the development to be integrated into the landscape in terms of materials, design and architectural style. The conclusion reached, based on a comparison between the existing building if operational and in its un- landscaped context (as this is what could occur without further approval) with the proposed development. They conclude that the effect on landscape character would be moderate, entailing some change to the existing landscape but that this would not constitute a significant environmental impact, particularly given the distance of the building from many vantage points where the height and mass of the building would be more difficult to discern and that is would not be that different from the existing building. The impact on cultural heritage - St. Michael's Isle, St. Michael's Chapel, Hango Broogh Promontory Fort and Derby Fort is considered to be major/moderate as there would be substantial change to the existing landscape but that any redevelopment scheme would have a similar effect.
The consultants states that there is no supporting text to explain how to assess what a significant increase in landscape impact would be and that the judgement to be made is the landscape impact when considered as a whole and not necessarily in respect of any specific
==== PAGE 41 ====
17/01265/B Page 41 of 84
spatial or volumetric parameters. They state that abstracting one parameter only (that of volume) cannot of itself mean there is a substantive change in landscape impact - which is considered from a range of viewpoints from differing distances and circumstances. They suggest that the impact would become less sensitive over time through familiarity and also as the ability to compare the new with the old would diminish.
It is not unexpected that there would be differences in opinion regarding this matter, which has an element of subjectivity about it. It is agreed that landscape impact is not just about size, but size clearly needs to be one of the most important elements of assessment of visual impact on a landscape. What other elements to be put into the mix as suggested appears to be limited to consideration from a range of viewpoints and contexts, but this is not really elaborated upon. The CGI comparison from Hango Broough provided shows what appears to be a significantly larger building from the same view point, in the same context. There is not a suggestion that the proposed mix of external materials lessens its impact.
The LVIA also suggests that the visual impact would reduce when considered at the 15 year post completion stage for two reasons, firstly the building would weather and secondly people would become less sensitive to it. With regard to the first, the external materials of the building would be stone and white render. While the stone may weather it is already a relatively dark material and so its impact is unlikely to diminish over time. With regard to the white render, its weathering effectively means that it would become dirtier and the freshness of the white would disappear.
The building is to be, for the most part, higher than the existing. Its mass is to be greater and its proximity to the roadway closer. The building would appear as a larger block although this would be broken up by its materials which would lessen its impact when viewed from afar, but it is not agreed that its appearance would lessen over time, nor is getting used to it a convincing argument.
Overall it is considered that the proposal would significantly increase its landscape impact.
8.5 Impact on heritage assets. There are no designated heritage assets in the boundary of the site, but within 2km of the site there are 8 Protected Ancient Monuments and 4 registered buildings plus one recorded archaeological asset. A physical archaeological evaluation (a trench) dug by Wardell Armstrong Archaeology did not identify any remains within the site and as such it is considered that there is low potential for any further previously unrecorded assets to be present. Again as stated earlier the EIA concludes that there would be a moderate to large adverse impact on Hango Broogh and St Michael's Chapel would be affected to a slight extent but that these impacts are no greater than the current situation.
The assessment of impact on ancient monuments and their settings is not dissimilar to the assessment of impact on the landscape, albeit considered from different vantage points. The basis of the argument is that the impact, whilst moderate to large would be either no greater than the current situation or any other redevelopment. Notwithstanding the assumption that any redevelopment would be of the same scale, the increase in size of the proposal over the existing is seen to have a negative impact on these heritage assets, however a newer and better designed building would improve their context as would the reduction in external car parking spaces, provided the parking area at St Michael's Isle is not used for overspill parking.
8.6 Environmental Matters Ecology and Wildlife:
The special designation of Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI) and the Bird Sanctuary are detailed in the report. Unsurprisingly there is significant comment with regard to the impact of the development on these sites. Where there has been little objection it is based on the
==== PAGE 42 ====
17/01265/B Page 42 of 84
premise that the existing building could be re-used for its lawful purpose and that the site is allocated for hotel development. Assuming therefore that there would be demolition, rebuild and then future activity, the evaluation is based on mitigating those impacts rather than objecting to new development.
In other instances objection is raised on the basis that the application seeks re-development of the site and that redevelopment will have an unnecessary and adverse impact on the ecology and wildlife of the area.
Even taking into account the presumption in favour of hotel development, the application proposes both a hotel and residential development introducing a building and uses of a different scale and nature to that which exists. While a hotel may have guests that choose to explore the surrounding areas, any permanent resident is likely to do this on a more frequent basis. The use within the EcIA of the increase in population being compared to that of Malew and being 1.92% is seen as disingenuous, although it also perhaps not fair to compare the increase only to the number of residents of Derbyhaven considering the number of visitors to the area. It is considered that the impact of nearly 80 or so additional residents would have on the ecology of the area and the importance of it for birdlife has been underplayed. The area surrounding the site is proposed to be the amenity area for residents, a place for them to walk and enjoy and there is no doubt that they would use the footpaths and beach areas for this purpose all year round. This would be detrimental to the ecology and wildlife of the area. The provision of bird boxes, a reduced lighting scheme and banning cats may help to mitigate the impact, as would controls during demolition and construction, but given the high level of designation, it is questionable as to whether such a level of development is appropriate.
Flood Risk and Drainage:
It is understood that despite the location of the development, the proposed building would not be susceptible to flooding. It is noted that the roads to the site (e.g. Castletown Promenade) can be subject to overtopping and that at some points this results in the road being closed.
The proposed method of disposal of the surface water, which is to sea, has been relocated following concerns about the impact this would have on eelgrass and marine life and the proposed outfall is now considered by DEFA's Biodiversity team to be acceptable.
In terms of the method of disposal of foul sewage, it had been proposed to refurbish the existing pumping station and connect it to the main public foul gravity sewer in Derbyhaven. More recently MUA have indicated that this will not meet their specifications and that they will work with the developer post planning to ensure a suitable foul pumping station can be adopted. They state however that if their requirements are not met, the drainage serving the development will remain private. This poses some difficulty in that policy calls for new development to be connected to the existing systems however it is not known what the design of the new pumping station would be and whether this would require planning approval in itself, and what the implications of that pumping station might be. Such details ought to be a pre-requisite of planning approval but could be dealt with by way of a Grampian condition that requires prior approval of a foul drainage scheme before commencement of development.
Noise:
The EIA addresses noise only in so far as it relates to traffic and condensing units and so on. There is no noise assessment relating to the impact of noise from functions on either existing residents or the residents of the proposed flats. If the hotel is intended to be a destination hotel (rather than a business hotel) which the application and Hotel Futures study suggests that out of town hotels ought to be in terms of providing income, then it would be expected that functions would be held. The proposal includes within it an outside terrace below the residential units and the potential for a marquee in the walled parking area. The noise from
==== PAGE 43 ====
17/01265/B Page 43 of 84
people chatting and laughing and from music would no doubt have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the future residents, so much so that they make seek to restrict functions either by involving environmental health or by how the management of the complex is set up. Given that the residential element is far greater than the hotel, it is possible that they may have the greater control. Consequently far from securing a hotel use, the residents could well be the ones who would control its future or at least any events that are held there.
8.7 Traffic, highway safety and parking The Transport Assessment and Highway Services consider that the proposals in relation to access and highway safety are acceptable and that Fort Island Road, albeit narrow and single width for much of its length has the capacity to take any additional traffic, even considering the lack of pavement and the leisure use of the road by walkers.
There is no doubt that there will be a negative impact in the quality of use, that is, how nice it is to walk along there, but this would not amount to a traffic safety issue.
It is considered that weekends could be problematic. The use by the transport consultants of Douglas Road in Castletown to compare weekend levels of use with weekday uses and then concluding that the levels on Fort Island Road would be lower than the survey undertaken on a Wednesday is not considered to be appropriate as the type of activity is different, notably the level of use for the golf club and the hotel as well as visitors. On these days the level of traffic could result in times where cars are queuing and some reversing and other manoeuvring needs to take place so cars can pass one another. The view of Highway Services that the Golf Club should manage their traffic with DOI and the Police maybe appropriate for one-off large events but for standard use each weekend it is considered that these should be calculated into the figures.
It is noted that the proposal involves the realignment of the junction at Fort Island Road and Derbyhaven Road junction and this means on-street car parking will be displaced. The concern of where residents would now park their cars has been questioned.
Parking
The application provides parking levels that are in accordance with the Strategic Plan. The standards set out in the Strategic Plan are there for guidance and not blind acceptance. If weddings are to be accommodated for, then there is likely to be an increase in the need for parking which may not be able to be accommodated, especially if the car parking in the walled area is used for a marquee. It is noted that there is no room outside the application site for parking for overspill, except the site on St Michael's Isle. The remainder of the land outside the application site is either part of the narrow highway, or on land which is part of the ASSI. Nevertheless, the level of parking provided is considered adequate. If large events do happen it would be necessary for the event organiser to consider ways of getting guests to the venue.
Although cycle parking is provided as requested, not all cycle spaces appear easy to use and those in the walled garden/parking area are some distance from the building, albeit they could be used by residents who wish to store their cycles for infrequent use.
In response that parking ought to be provided for golfers as per a previous planning approval, this is not accepted because it is not for the application site to take account of and provide for other users in the vicinity.
8.8 Other Matters Design: It is recognised that some attention has been paid to the context of the site in order to influence the design of the building. There are some aspect of the design that are welcomed, e.g. the use of stone (provided it isn't stone clad) and the deep window recesses. Overall the design of the building suffers from its scale.
==== PAGE 44 ====
17/01265/B Page 44 of 84
Recreation space: This is referred to in the ecology and wildlife aspects of the report where it is not considered appropriate to encourage residents to use the foreshore for recreation. The scheme does however provide some internal space and it is accepted that the apartments are not likely to be used by families. Balconies are provided. It might be considered acceptable to have some form of commuted payment in lieu of open space provision that could be used within the vicinity for recreation/leisure benefits.
Bin Stores: It is documented elsewhere in this report that the bin stores are located some distance from hotel entrance and designed to be easy to collect by vehicles but they would be harder for use by staff. They would be 62 metres from the undercroft entrance which is greater than the 10m recommended. Importantly where they are positioned is adjacent to the roadway and as such they would be prominent which is unsatisfactory from a visual amenity point of view.
9 CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposal seeks approval for redevelopment of a hotel with a hotel and residential use. While an argument can be made that alternative uses could be considered should a hotel not be viable, any proposals for redevelopment should be considered in the light of all the policies in the development plan and any other material considerations.
9.2 The use of the land for residential purposes is contrary to a number of policies in the development plan that seek to direct new development to existing settlements and prevent unsustainable development.
9.3 The proposal would result in increased built development, both in footprint and mass and would have an increased impact on the landscape, even when comparing it to the existing building.
9.4 The proposal would also result in the likelihood of increased activity in an ecologically sensitive location and bird sanctuary.
9.5 While the development provides for a hotel, and an increase in visitor bed spaces is an aim of government, the proposal does not match that of a high quality destination hotel which is suggested is necessary for a successful operation, and consequently the benefits of the proposal are significantly outweighed by the harm.
9.6 For the reasons stated in 9.1 to 9.5 above, it is recommended that the application be refused.
Appendix 1
Summary of Relevant advice and Proposals from the Area Plan for the South
Port Grenaugh (E1) The overall strategy is to conserve the character, quality and distinctiveness of this remote and tranquil coastal area with its rich ecological habitats, open and expansive panoramic views and numerous sites of archaeological importance. Key Views Panoramic and open views out to sea from the Raad ny Foillan coastal footpath, south towards Langness and the School Tower in Castletown and north up the jagged coastline towards Santon Head.
Langness (E11) The overall strategy is to conserve the character, quality and distinctiveness of the coastal area with its rich ecological habitats, open and expansive panoramic views, and to conserve the
==== PAGE 45 ====
17/01265/B Page 45 of 84
tranquil and rugged character of the area with its numerous sites of archaeological importance, such as the former mines and former smelt mines. Key Views Panoramic, open views across surrounding, ever-changing seascape, from several points along the peninsula, in particular from Dreswick Point (at the southernmost tip). Dramatic views northwards from St. Michael's Island, along the north eastern shore. Open views across Castletown Bay to the west.
Castletown and Ballasalla (F7) The overall strategy is to conserve the character, quality and distinctiveness of this open area that contributes to the setting of Castletown and Ballasalla, to enhance the river field pattern and to conserve the aquatic habitat corridor of the Silverburn. Key Views Open and panoramic views out to sea and over Langness' rocky shoreline beyond the Airport. Key views to the prominent landmarks of Castle Rushen and King William's College.
Implications of the Landscape Character Assessment Landscape Type - Undulating Lowland Plain and Rugged Coast Landscape Area - F7 (Castletown and Ballasalla), F8 (Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula) and E10 (Castletown Bay) i. The broader setting of Castletown is provided by Castletown Bay, which is formed by the Langness Peninsula on the east and by Scarlett to the west, and by the gently sloping agricultural land rising towards South Barrule. This certainly merits protection, both for its own sake in terms of landscape, and as the historic context of the Town.
Implications of the Landscape Character Assessment Landscape Type: Uplands, Incised Slopes, Rugged Coast, Undulating Lowland Plain Landscape Area: A2 (Southern Uplands), D14 (Ballamodha, Earystane and St Mark's), E11 (Langness), F7 (Castletown and Ballasalla) and F8 (Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula) i. To protect and enhance the identity of Ballasalla by conserving the rural character of the adjacent landscape. ii. In terms of Langness, to resist any development that would detract from the unspoilt character and appearance of the rugged coast or from the sense of openness in the area. iii. Protection of the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views. iv. Sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting. v. Avoidance of physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing.
Landscape Proposal 22: The design of any new or replacement buildings on Langness should be such as not to increase significantly their landscape impact and should be so designed as to respect the location of, and facilitate public access to, the promontory fort on Langness known as Hango Broogh.
Para 5.3.2 The Calf, and Kitterland host the main haul-out areas for grey seals and the occasional common seal, the Calf being an important seal pupping site. There is a colony of speckled bush crickets at Glen Chass/Perwick and the lesser mottled grasshopper is found at Langness, the only known site in the British Isles. Langness is a 'tombolo', a unique feature on the Island, and has a number of rare habitats above and below the water. There, the most important roost of wading birds on the Isle of Man can be found and possibly the best area of saltmarsh. Waterfowl are relatively abundant around the southeast coast and inland there are small areas of reedbeds, which are a rare habitat on the Isle of Man. The upland moorland and plantations have nesting hen harriers and short eared owls and there is a winter hen harrier roost.
Para 5.3.3 Coastal habitats in the South, as in the rest of the Island, are particularly vulnerable to climate changes. The Plan does not propose any specific development sites on the coast and sufficient habitat protection is afforded for coastal as well as inland habitats (including bat roosts) by the current array of Environment Policies set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007, and the Wildlife Act 1990.
==== PAGE 46 ====
17/01265/B Page 46 of 84
Para 5.3.4 Sites and areas of particular value or interest to wildlife and nature conservation are indicated on the Constraints Map (Map 1). These fall into several different categories, some of which are afforded protection under other legislation. General background information and Environment Policies are set out in Section 7.8 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007. The following categories of:
i. Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI); ii. Wildlife Sites, Areas of Ecological Interest (AEI) and Nature Reserves; iii. Manx National Trust Land; iv. Bird Areas; and v. Ramsar Sites (recommended), all appear on the Constraints Map (Map 1) and are discussed below.
Para 5.4 Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI) There are, within the Plan Area, four Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI) which have been designated as such under the Wildlife Act 1990:
Para 5.8 Important Bird Areas and Ramsar Sites 5.8.1 There are three identified Important Bird Areas in the South, these being the Isle of Man Sea Cliffs, The Calf of Man, and the Isle of Man Hills. There are also 2 Bird Sanctuaries; at Langness, Derbyhaven and Fort Island, and at Ballamodha. The Southern Coasts and Calf of Man have been recommended for designation as a Ramsar Site of International Importance.
Para 6.28.9 St Michael's Isle, adjacent to the Langness Peninsula contains several Ancient Monuments and is also a popular destination for walkers and birdwatchers.
Para 6.29.1 There are currently a number of tourist premises throughout the Southern Area, ranging from self-catering, bed and breakfast and hotel accommodation. Historically, much of the tourist accommodation was located in large seafront hotels in Port Erin and Port St Mary. The demand for this type of accommodation is now in decline and many of these large hotels have now closed allowing for redevelopment/conversion of the sites to take place where appropriate. This has resulted in an overall reduction in bed spaces in the South of the Island and in many cases former hotels have been replaced by apartments. The Department of Economic Development's approach is to support the retention of and development of tourist accommodation but would generally agree to the loss of tourist premises, where it is clearly demonstrated that they are no longer commercially viable. 3.2.14 para 6.29.2 Given the decline in the number of bed spaces in the South it is important that the retention of hotels is seen as vital to the continued attraction of the area. As such existing major hotels have been identified on the Proposals Map (3) and the Inset Maps (4-7) and the Proposal below seeks to retain hotel accommodation provided that it is still viable. Any applications for extensions to existing hotels or for new hotel development would be assessed on their merits taking into consideration extant land zonings.
Tourism Proposal 1: The following hotels have been identified as important to tourism and must be retained for hotel use: the Castletown Golf Links; the Sefton Express Airport Hotel; the Cherry Orchard; and the Falcon's Nest Hotel. Proposals for redevelopment or re-use would not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that hotel use is no longer commercially viable.
Appendix 2
Relevant Strategic Plan Policies
==== PAGE 47 ====
17/01265/B Page 47 of 84
The Strategic Aim: To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage.
Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.
Strategic Policy 2: New development would be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development would be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.
Strategic Policy 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department would require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which would be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.
Strategic Policy 8: Tourist development proposals would generally be permitted where they make use of existing built fabric of interest and quality, where they do not affect adversely environmental, agricultural, or highway interests and where they enable enjoyment of our natural and manmade attractions.
Strategic Policy 10: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement.
Spatial Policy 5: New development would be located within the defined settlements. Development would only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.
General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan would normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
==== PAGE 48 ====
17/01265/B Page 48 of 84
(d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
General Policy 3: Development would not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.
General Policy 4: This policy relates to the ability for the Department to enter into s13 Agreements for various purposes including requiring payments to be made to the Department either in a single sum or periodically, in particular as commuted sums for open space or parking provision, or other social or cultural provision, including public art, which is necessary and directly associated with the development proposed.
Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology would be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside would not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
Environment Policy 4: Development would not be permitted which would adversely affect: (a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites. (b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats;
==== PAGE 49 ====
17/01265/B Page 49 of 84
(ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land. (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.
Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department would seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward.
Environment Policy 5: In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under EP4, conditions would be imposed and/or Planning Agreements sought to: a) minimise disturbance; b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated.
Environment Policy 10: Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4.
Environment Policy 11: Coastal development would only be permitted where it would not: i) increase or transfer the risk of flooding or coastal erosion through its impact on natural coastal processes; ii) prejudice the capacity of the coast to form a natural sea defence; and iii) increase the need for additional coast protection works except where necessary to protect existing investment or development.
Environment Policy 13: Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, would not be permitted.
Environment Policy 22: Development would not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.
Environment Policy 24: Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment would be required: i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases.
Appendix 5 sets out instances where Environmental Impact Assessments would be required in every case, including - Holiday villages and hotel complexes outside urban areas and associated developments.
==== PAGE 50 ====
17/01265/B Page 50 of 84
Environment Policy 40: Development would not be permitted which would damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site or an Ancient Monument or the setting thereof.
Housing Policy 4: New housing would be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing would be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.
Housing Policy 5: In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more.:
Para 9.5.2 Tourism has historically been an important element in the Island's economy, and after a period of steady decline visitor numbers to the Island are once again starting to increase. A reliance on the traditional high volume, low yield holidays of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is long gone, with a swing towards high yield, lower volume tourism such as business trips, short breaks and special interest attractions.
Para 9.5.3 It is considered that the Island's primary assets to tourists and visitors alike are its unique historical landscape, culture and heritage, as well as a wide range of specialist events and attractions... Tourism can, however require the erection of built structures - holiday accommodation being the most frequently requested form of new development required in association with the tourism industry. It is important that a balance be struck between the needs of tourism and the protection of these assets, and that tourism development should be sustainable in accordance with the objectives of this plan. There is no special reason why less demanding policies should be applied to tourism development than for other types of development in the countryside, and larger scale schemes may have to be the subject of an environmental impact assessment before planning permission is granted, as with any other form of large scale development.
Para 9.5.4 The Department of Tourism and Leisure is responsible for the development of the tourism strategy for the Island. The current version of the Tourism Strategy - "Fit for the Future" was approved by Tynwald in April 2004. One of the key issues identified in that strategy is the need to broaden the range of tourist accommodation: "Long term development is also being hindered by the lack of bed spaces in general and of the quality now being required to service our customer's base in particular. It is a necessary requirement that existing bed stock continues to upgrade and the Department would ensure appropriate support is put in place to enable existing business to develop. In addition the Department also needs to provide support for the building of new bed stock on an Island wide basis. There also needs to be recognition that the local property market can have a major impact on future tourism development. If there is a continued loss of traditional resort accommodation taking advantage of the high cost of residential property then there would be a heavy reliance on new build hotels if serviced stock levels are to be retained or increased"
Para 9.5.5 In recognition of this the Department proposes that new forms of contemporary tourism development would be welcomed, particularly those that satisfy customer demand for high quality accommodation in rural areas provided that they comply with the policies in the plan.
==== PAGE 51 ====
17/01265/B Page 51 of 84
Para 9.5.6 ... The role of an Area Plan should not be to provide a strategy for tourism but rather to facilitate possible development by way of appropriate policies and guidance.
Para 9.5.7 Although previous Local Plans have applied a "Tourism" designation to areas with a large number of hotels, such a designation is becoming less appropriate in many towns and villages as the reduced demand for larger Victorian hotels results in conversion to private residential use. It is now more likely that a Tourism designation be given to specific tourist attractions and existing large individual hotel sites, with new tourist accommodation incorporated into areas of mixed or residential use. Wider areas which still include a large tourism element, such as Douglas Promenade, may be designated for "Residential/ Tourism" use (other potential uses may be identified and included in a mixed designation if appropriate).
Para 9.5.8 The use of existing private residential properties as tourist accommodation may be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that it would not compromise the amenities of any neighbouring residents.
Business Policy 11: Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development would be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted.
Recreation Policy 3: Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan.
Recreation Policy 5 (second half)
A.6.1 All residential development creates a need for open space, whether located in an urban or rural area, the purpose of this Appendix being to assist people in making planning applications to identify the open space requirements in relation to their proposal.
A.6.1.1 The exact open space requirement would depend on the individual circumstances and nature of each planning application. Applicants are asked to note that all new residential development must provide adequate standards of residential amenity, including private open space such as gardens or shared amenity spaces for apartments, and bin storage areas. Meeting the open space requirement in this Appendix does not exempt applicants from providing adequate private open space.
A.6.1.2 It is not considered feasible to request smaller residential developments to make provision for open space either through on-site provision or by way of a commuted sum payment. Therefore, planning applications for the development of ten dwellings and above would have to make provision for open space.
A.6.1.3 In order to adequately undertake an assessment, it is considered important to have a clear understanding of what is meant by the term "outdoor playing space" and how it differs from "open space". The widely accepted definition of outdoor playing space is:
A.6.1.4 An area that is safely accessible and available to the general public, and of a suitable size and nature, for sport, active recreation or children's play.
==== PAGE 52 ====
17/01265/B Page 52 of 84
A.6.1.5 With open space being defined as:
A.6.1.6 Any land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation.
Playing Space that may be included A.6.2 Provided that it meets the general definition indicated in paragraph A.6.1.1, the following list indicates land that may be included in the overall standard:
For sporting use: Pitches, greens, courts, athletics tracks, and miscellaneous sites such as training areas in the ownership or control of public bodies including the Department of Education, where such facilities are available to the general public. Areas described above which are within the private, industrial or commercial sectors, that serve the leisure time needs for outdoor sport and recreation of their members or the public.
For children's use: Designated area for children containing a range of facilities and an environment that has been designed to provide opportunities for outdoor play, Casual or informal playing space within housing areas.
Playing space that is excluded The following areas are excluded from the definition of playing space, however, they may still make a valuable contribution to the total recreational provision of communities, particularly those that are deficient in recreational space.
Verges, woodlands, the seashore, nature conservation areas, allotments, golf courses, water used for recreation, except where it forms an interactive feature of an outdoor play area, commercial entertainment complexes, sports halls (indoor provision may make a contribution to certain sports, such as badminton, tennis or bowls, and such facilities may be taken into account when assessing whether there is demand for these activities, however with regard to outdoor playing space, such area must be seen as complementary), car parks for non- recreational use.
Community Policy 10: Proposals for the layout and development of land will be permitted only where there is provided proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes.
Community Policy 11: The design and use of all new buildings and of extensions to existing buildings must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to best practice such as to prevent the outbreak and spread of fire.
Transport Policy 4: The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.
Transport Policy 6: In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians would be given similar weight to the needs of other road users.
Transport Policy 7: The Department would require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.
Appendix 7 Car parking is required to be provided on the basis of one space for every single bed apartment, and two spaces for apartments with more bedrooms than this: hotels are required to be 1 space per guest bedroom in rural and suburban locations.
==== PAGE 53 ====
17/01265/B Page 53 of 84
Transport Policy 8: The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment.
Infrastructure Policy 1: With the exception of individual plots or very small-scale schemes (equivalent in scale to an individual plot), development shall only take place in areas which will ultimately be connected to the IRIS system.
Infrastructure Policy 2: Full details of all interim drainage arrangements for development in areas awaiting connection to IRIS shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Local Government and the Environment before development is commenced. Para 11.8.1 All new development must be capable of being drained of foul and surface water in a safe, convenient, and environmentally acceptable manner. The Department of Transport Drainage Division is the All-Island Drainage Authority and assumes responsibility for all of the Island's public sewers and treatment works, with a number of local authorities acting as Agents within their particular town, village, or parish. As well as maintaining and improving existing infrastructure, the Drainage Division inspects the proposed drainage plans for new development in order to ensure that the completed works are in accordance with the flow and treatment capacity of the system into which they will link and are, where appropriate, of an adoptable standard.
Energy Policy 5: The Department will prepare a Planning Policy Statement on Energy Efficiency. Pending the preparation and adoption of that PPS the Department will require proposals for more than 5 dwellings or 100 square metres of other development to be accompanied by an Energy Impact Assessment.
Appendix 3
Harbour House The Terrace Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TY
The Cottage Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TS
Thie Yuan Fistard Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5PQ
Thie Yuan Fistard Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5PQ
Flat 6 Marine Court Apartments Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TS
1 The Crescent Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TX
5 Windsor Terrace Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3LU
C/0 Mr Philip Vermeulen The Herring House Fort Island Road Derbyhaven IM9 1TZ
5 High View Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5BQ
The Lodge Fort Island Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1UA
3 Costain Close Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4NZ
No. 19 Restaurant Golf Links Hotel Fort Island Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1UA
Flat 4 Marine Court Apartments Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TS
Apartment 4 Windsor House Promenade Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6LA
20 Athol Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 1JA
==== PAGE 54 ====
17/01265/B Page 54 of 84
Seascape 14 Douglas Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1BD
Old Parsonage Barns St Marks Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3AH
Steven Abbott Associates LLP Broadsword House, 2 Stonecrop, Appley Bridge Wigan WN6 9DL
The Haven Fort Island Road Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TZ
21 Wentworth Close Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2JT
The Cottage Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TS
8 Douglas Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1AY
The Herring House Fort Island Road Derbyhaven Isle of Man IM9 1TZ
Whitburn 3 Shore Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1BF
7 The Crescent Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TX Balladoyle House Fort Island Road Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TZ
Marina House Bay View Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5AQ
Seagull Hollow The Terrace Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TY
Homestead Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TR
Cameron Court Fort Island Road Derbyhaven Isle of Man IM9 1TZ
Derbyhaven Residents Society Ltd 5 The Crescent Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TX
10 Bridge Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1AX
Great Meadow House Malew IM9 4EB
6 The Crescent Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TX
Ballakesh Farm Lhen Road Bride
Hazelcroft 95 Malew Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1LX
Balladoyle, Fort Island Road, Derbyhaven, IM9 1TZ
Flat 4 Marine Court Apartments Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TS
35 New Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7BG
South Eastern Enterprise Committee Commissioners Office Main Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 2RQ
Balladoyle, Fort Island Road, Derbyhaven, IM9 1TZ
The Secretary of Isle of Man Friends of the Earth: Objects to the application on the grounds that the development would be out of keeping with the area of exceptional conservation value and that insufficient attention has been paid to the development's long term implications. They make reference to surface water drainage and
==== PAGE 55 ====
17/01265/B Page 55 of 84
over-development of the site and query whether the amount of apartments is justified. They express awareness of a need to acknowledge climate change and in this respect, higher sea levels and increasingly stormy weather are relevant in this case to the future of access and infrastructure provision and maintenance which in turn could have a catastrophic effect on the environment. They support Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture's view that provisions should be made in respect of choughs on the site and that the eelgrass is protected and that provision should be made to restrict cats on the site. Finally they refer to the UNESCO Biosphere status of the Island and suggests that the development falls short in respect of the actions expected to protect and justify it (12.02.18).
Astroman: Astroman is a company based in Onchan. They comment on the potential for an adverse impact through excessive and inappropriate lighting, citing the adjacent Dark Skies site at St. Michael's Isle and suggesting that a further look at the design and number of lights in the development should be taken. They comment particularly on the use of passive motion sensor lighting as worrying as such lights seldom work effectively and are frequently activated by wildlife and certain weather conditions which would negate any perceived benefits. The impact of excessive lighting would not be limited to the Dark Skies initiative but also to nature whose behaviour can been changed through the introduction of artificial levels of illumination. As an alternative to the development, they would like to see the inclusion of the site in the adjacent ASSI (25.01.18).
The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society: The IOMNHAS comment that the eastern end of the Langness Peninsula is one of the most scenic areas of the Island and contains many features of archaeological interest. Whilst they acknowledge that the existing building offers little to enhance the locality, they are concerned that the proposal would be too prominent and represent a "far too permanent intensive use of the site in the future". They consider that the architectural design gives nothing to this sensitive site and they wonder how they can be satisfied that the proposal would be viable and not just result in the site being given over to wholly residential use. They are also concerned over the lack of amenity space for residents and they do not consider it acceptable to refer to the adjacent archaeological site as an amenity area. They are concerned that an increase in the number of people on the site may encourage further erosion of the fragile banks. If residential accommodation is to be included, it should be provided with all of the normal requirements for parking, turning and amenity space within the confines of the site and not rely upon adjoining land and it should not impinge upon or threaten the public's right to pass the site onto St. Michael's Isle. (24.02.18). In a further letter of 10.8.21 they maintain their concerns over the intensity of this development in relation to the fragility of the surrounding landscape and the potential conflict, post development, of allowing permanent residential homes with lack of private amenity/recreational space suitable for young people and dogs without their transgressing onto and potentially harming adjacent heritage land, archaeological sites and Area of Special Scientific Interest.
Manx Bird Life: Manx Bird Life comment that the site lies within a quadruple designated landscape incorporating the Langness, Derbyhaven and Sandwick ASSI, the Derbyhaven, Langness and Fort Island and foreshores adjoining Bird Sanctuary, the Biosphere Terrestrial Core Zone and the Langness Marine Nature Reserve. They suggest that it also sits within the proposed qualifying Southern Coasts and Calf of Man RAMSAR site which, cumulatively, demand the highest order or precaution, protection and management (enhancement of the natural assets). They do not consider that these are met by the proposed development. They suggest that the site should be restored to a green field status and no necessity has been given for the development in accordance with Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 5. If the development does go ahead there should be an independently managed compensatory fund established by the applicant to provide adequate resources to prevent and remediate threats to breeding and wintering birds and habitats. The Biosphere status of the Island has not been
==== PAGE 56 ====
17/01265/B Page 56 of 84
recognised or fulfilled in the proposal. The foreshore should not be accepted as fulfilling the requirement for protection or enhancement of landscape and ecological quality as required by Strategic Policy 4 and wildlife exclusion zones should be introduced with associated signage advising people not to walk along the foreshore. They suggest that the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal does not recognise the Island's nation status as they consider the avifauna merely to be of local importance rather than an asset of national importance within the context of the Island nation. It is necessary to prepare a review of the nationally important, unique assemblage of migratory and wintering birds using the site and impact zone to properly complete the assessment of avifauna. Cats and uncontrolled animals must be banned. A different method for the disposal of surface water must be found to avoid the outfall of organic and man-made chemicals onto the protected foreshore and into the bay. They don't believe their initial concerns (submitted on behalf of Langness Golf Club) have been overcome (30.11.18).
Langness Golf Club Limited (LGCL): Submitted responses under their own name and through Steven Abbott Associates, received 31.01.18, 01.02.18, 15.02.18, 30.11.19, 4.12.20 and 16.7.21. These submissions provide an objection to the application on various grounds which for ease have been split into subject headings.
Policy Principle
They consider that the site, whilst designated for Tourism, is not designated for residential development and as this does not comply with the land use designation, it should be taken as in conflict with GP2 and does not comply with GP3. They consider it does not satisfy GP3c [reuse of previously developed land] as the proposed development does not reduce the impact of development on the environment.
They consider the hotel could be considered to accord with policy, subject to compliance with other relevant policies relating to design, environmental impact etc. However, the housing element is contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Housing Policy 4, Transport Policy 1 and that the site is located in the countryside. They do not believe that Tourism Proposal 1 includes provision for any non-hotel enabling development nor can a development which proposes a much larger building - they calculate it to be a 160% increase - be considered to comply with Landscape Proposal 22. They express surprise that the scheme does not include any tree planting or other landscaping treatments which could normally reduce or mitigate landscape impacts over time.
They point out that Tourism Proposal 1 (TP1) does not explicitly allow for the development of the site for housing or other non-tourism related development, rather it indicates the circumstances in terms of hotel viability that must exist before the Department could consider permitting either redevelopment or re-use. TP1 does not state that redevelopment for non- hotel uses would automatically be permitted irrespective of other relevant planning policy considerations if it can be demonstrated that hotel use is no longer viable. They state that first and foremost TP1 states that the existing hotel must be retained for hotel use and is not a permissive policy towards any form of development other than hotel tourism. To suggest, as the applicant does in the letter of 3 October 2018 that housing redevelopment of the site is acceptable in principle because the policy does not explicitly exclude housing redevelopment is flawed and does not reflect and acceptable approach to the interpretation of planning policy. They argue that policy needs to be read in context of the planning objectives which it seeks to achieve and serve which is informed by the wider policy framework. They feel it is incorrect to suggest that a proposed development of forty residential apartments does not fall to be considered against adopted Development Plan policies relevant to housing. To support their view they cite Business Policy 11 which states that Tourist development must be in accordance with the sustainable objectives of the plan. They reiterate Strategic Policy 2 that directs new development to towns and villages and disagrees that the site is allocated for future
==== PAGE 57 ====
17/01265/B Page 57 of 84
development and certainly not for housing. They state that taken as a whole the site lies within a countryside area albeit a previously developed site. They feel the elements of the scheme that do not accord with the zoning should be considered against General Policy 3 and that the apartments do not fall within any of the exceptions to development in the countryside listed in that policy.
They refer to the strategic plan paragraph that states if there is any conflict between the contents of an Area Plan and the contents of the Strategic Plan the more recently approved document would prevail. They note that the Strategic Plan 2016 is later than the Area Plan for the South and that its sustainability objectives should prevail. They refer to a previous appeal document for a development for 21 dwellings stating that it would be a breach of the strategic plan aim and spatial strategies of the Development Plan.
They state that the argument that the development would contribute to housing figures is unsupported by compelling evidence and that there are other schemes being actively promoted.
They feel the reference to a commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing is vague and that the implications of this aspects have not been put forward and transparently evidenced. LGCL argue that Tourism Proposal 1 does not represent a zoning and based on the APS with its series of maps/plans and details of constraints, landscape and proposals it is not credible to argue that the site is not in the countryside, particularly noting the conclusion of an Inspector in pa17/01312/B that Derbyhaven is in the countryside. They state that spatial policy 5 of the Strategic Plan precludes development outside of defined settlements unless they are in accordance with the exceptions in General Policy 3 which they are not.
General/viability/alternative propositions They explain that the golf links course has a national and international reputation due to its unique location and it is common knowledge that LGCL has sought to acquire the hotel and site over time and it was their intention to restore the functional and operational links between the hotel site and the golf course with the two elements operation collectively as a high quality leisure and tourism facility. They explain that a cash offer was made to the then owners in December 2011, which was rejected and the site was then sold to the applicant Fort Island Development Limited (FIDL). LGCL then presented two options to FIDL as a joint venture or to purchase the site for the same acquisition cost in 2011, neither of which was accepted. Sunningdale Investments Limited were approached in 2013 with a cash offer for their 50% and in 2015 FIDL were approached with a cash offer for the land and buildings plus 20% uplift in the 2011 acquisition costs. During the time of these unsuccessful offers, they have seen the site continue into dilapidation and neglect. They consider the current position as a wasted opportunity in planning and commercial terms, to secure a high quality hotel to sit alongside and complement the leisure offer associated with the golf course.
They consider the information that has been provided in terms of financial viability to be limited and has not enabled them to understand the viability submissions. They estimate the fixed land cost/value of £2.9million to be unrealistic from a residual approach and believe that the price paid includes more than just the hotel site so the cost of the hotel is less than £2.9 million, and ask that alternative models be considered - longer term investments opportunities, the development undertaken by an established operator with proven experience or some sort of joint venture. They note that there is no evidence of any open market testing or marketing of the application site as a hotel opportunity and as such there is no evidence that the site would not be of commercial interest to other potential developers or operators of a hotel. They are familiar with "enabling development" in the context of historic buildings in the UK and where this is development which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms but for the fact that it would bring public benefits sufficient to justify it being carried out and which could not otherwise be achieved and they refer to guidance from Historic England about such processes.
==== PAGE 58 ====
17/01265/B Page 58 of 84
They are also concerned about future control or enforceability to ensure the future operation of the hotel as such.
In terms of viability, the application contains no reference to alternatives of joint investment, despite LGCL over several years, offering long term investment in the site with the financial capability and operational expertise to deliver, manage and operate an appropriate hotel/leisure facility here. In terms of enabling development, what is being enabled is the hotel which would be supported in the relevant development plans. What would enable it is development which, in their view, is harmful in terms of landscape, archaeological, visual, coastal and planning policy impacts. In addition, they are not convinced that the information provided guarantees the future operation of the site as a hotel in terms of its economic viability. They believe that the assumed sales income is low and does not reflect what may be achieved based on known comparators, the land value is inflated and there is a lack of detail on land and build costs. The figures include almost £6million for commuted sums payable to Government and this is not broken down or explained.
They refer to a recent appeal at Glen Helen, 14/00882/A where the inspector rejected the applicant's justification for redeveloping the hotel for apartments on the basis that the hotel was not viable, on the basis that there had been no marketing of the property or firm evidence of having tried to sell it and no evidence of alternative forms of tourist accommodation on the site. Although not noted by the objector, that site is currently being developed as a cafe and glamping units.
The applicant's financial evaluation of the scheme is doubted, as there have been no considerations of other forms of supporting developments - suite hotels, aparthotels and serviced apartments nor any form of risk from economic factors (Brexit and other developments) and they estimate the value of the residential apartments as being more than is stated, suggesting that the number of apartments proposed is unnecessary. They also note that no reference has been made to Government financial support for the hotel and that the figures have not been prepared in accordance with the industry norm and that little has been given to demonstrate the operational viability of the hotel with no information as to what would happen if a suitable buyer is not found. They do not accept that the residential development would ensure the viability of the hotel. They do not believe that the hotel has been designed to accommodate the general public but rather high end-exclusive accommodation which aligns with the proposed apartments. Many of the hotel bedrooms do not have the views which would be expected from a development in this location and the apartments may become a competitor in the provision of accommodation at this site in terms of car parking, views, outlook, size and configuration. These could adversely affect the viability and success of the hotel.
On 5th February 2021 LGCL requested that further information to be considered as part of the application in the form of two offers made to the applicant to purchase the hotel site and all other land owned by them on Langness Peninsular or to enter into a joint venture combining assets on Langness Peninsula to develop a holistic tourism offering together. They feel they have developed a plan for a commercially viable tourism proposition of a boutique hotel and leisure facility on the site that would be capable of attracting engagement of both off island visitors and our local community. They note that the offers expired and wish for the offers to be considered as a material consideration against the applicant's contention that a hotel on the site is only commercially viability with a large residential development of 40 apartments. The offer for purchase is based on what they value the hotel site to be and provides details of how that figure was reached in essence £736,000 for the vacant hotel site and £500,000 for the remainder of the FIDL land on Langness.
The state that in respect of both offers, they would commit to developing a boutique hotel and accompanying leisure facility offering, in line with the Area Plan for the South. They would reunite the hotel and golf clubhouse business models, invest to achieve a balanced facility to attract local and off-island engagement to reduce seasonality challenges; review the position of
==== PAGE 59 ====
17/01265/B Page 59 of 84
the hotel in terms of whether it should be on another part of the golf course taking into account climate change, public drainage and sewer infrastructure, traffic and the Langness ecosystems. It would be an owner/management fun facility.
The submission provides details of operating costs and yields of approximately 5% based on a build cost of £9million and land purchase, professional fees and infrastructure cost of £3million. They believe this can be achieved because they propose a long term investment approach, as evidenced by the investment they have put into the adjacent golf course, plus the greater ratio of equity to debt (and no reliance on debt funding). They set out ways that there would be running cost synergies if the hotel and golf course ran together; maintenance, reception, management staff plus offers for guests and members.
In response to FIDL's argument that they are the only party that can deliver a hotel building on Langness and any other view or proposal is meaningless, they respond to say that in other instances on the Island where a landowner has argued lack of commercial viability that has been subject to requirement for proof that there is nobody else who might reasonably develop the site under its current zoning. LGCL are offered to purchase the site for its intended use as a hotel and has on two occasions offered a joint venture. The latest offer included opening the door to a wholesale location change based on projected 100 year climate change impact, rising sea levels, leveraging existing public drainage and sewer infrastructure, parking and reducing traffic through Derbyhaven and significant weight to be afforded to restore the Langness peninsula ecosystems to their fullest potential through sensitive, informed management for the benefit of its wildlife and human residents and visitors.
LGCL do agree with FIDL that there is no economically viable option to refurbish and reinstate the existing building. However they assert that taking FIDL drawings from 2012 it was always their intention to create residential development and allowing the property to continue to decay is a strategy that allows FIDL to happily state that a new significantly larger development than the derelict structure presently in existence would still reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape and wider environment in order to enhance their chances of changes the zoning at the expense of Tourism Proposal 1, the local community and arguably the entire Isle of Man.
In response to FIDL's comment that a longer than 5 year return term for viability assessments is not reasonable and that such an approach can only be a 'trophy project', LGCL argue that the commercial viability relates not to the profit requirements of an individual client over a short period of time, but to an entirely separate matter of planning policy as to whether a change of zoning should be allowed. They argue that the revenue driver of the landowner should not be the principal concern and therefore a timeline of greater than 5 years should be perfectly feasible to consider. They also note that UK transactions in 2020 showed over £1billion of investment from high net worth individuals and family offices and that as a general rule these do take a longer term investment view compared to the short term approach of FIDL and its advisors.
LCGL suggest that the lack of any detail or submission from the hotel operator that FIDL say they consulted in respect of the hotel proposition and layout render the statement of being of no real value and the fact that GVA/AY advised FIDL on the hotel layout and design as part of their submission means later comments cannot be seen to be unbiased.
LGCL's agents Steven Abbot comment on the ARC report on 3.12.20. They initial highlight the scope of the ARC report which was to comment on the facts and conclusions put forward by the applicant and objectors and not to undertake an independent study themselves. They note that ARC state they cannot verify the accuracy of data submitted. They also raise concern that the Department advised that the UK National Planning Policy Framework is of no relevance on Island and that neither is 'Enabling Development and Heritage Assets: Historic Environment
==== PAGE 60 ====
17/01265/B Page 60 of 84
Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 4) which they find at odds with the Strategic Plan that provides for use of external guidance where there is a gap for such on Island.
They query whether the viability assessment(s) submitted by the Applicant followed recognised and appropriate methodologies and guidance - identified in the Arc report as the RICS guidance (Financial Viability in Planning: Conduct and Reporting) and the Isle of Man Government 'Operational Policy on Section 13 Agreements' (this latter document providing guidance on the requirement for viability assessments on the Isle of Man). They note that the GVA Assessment submitted by the Applicant is a 'market based' assessment of the opportunity, rather than a Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) as required by the RICS guidance and the Isle of Man Operational Policy. Furthermore, it appears that the expectation was that the Arc work (commissioned by the Isle of Man Government/DEFA) should be a FVA which followed both the RICS guidelines and the Isle of Man operation policy which they state is not what has been produced. They state that of greatest concern is that Arc Consulting has been required to rely on the limited and incomplete information provided by the Applicants as part of the scheme. They state that this is directly at odds with the RICS guidance which states that: "FVA's should in general be based around market- rather than client specific information" and "Where possible there should be a presumption in favour of transparency of evidence." It is of concern therefore, that Arc refer to the GVA/AY assessment as producing a five year indicative projection of profit and loss for the hotel element and that being set alongside assumed construction costs (provided to them by the Applicant Quantity Surveyor). ARC refer to the following in respect of the assumptions and information: 'Summaries tabulating indicative costs for development'; ''Details of the real estate element are more limited and provide averages not detailed scheme breakdowns' 'The calculations involve estimates of cost of development, assumed sales prices and we assume take account of the cashflow implications of whatever sales process is envisaged.' The most notable inconsistency relates to the overall land acquisition price of £2.9m - there being a disparity of £2.174m between the industry benchmark value for the hotel (market specific) and the actual acquisition price (client/applicant specific). This factor is critical in establishing whether the proposed scheme of 40 apartments to support the delivery of a functioning/viable hotel is the minimum required. Consideration of that factor should not be based on the purchase price paid or the commercial circumstances of the present owner. The Arc report is useful in confirming the lack of transparency and objectivity arising from the financial viability inputs to the scheme and that the owner/applicant paid a 'premium' for the site based on the development opportunity. The expressed level of development value at £74 is inaccurate/understated - Arc recognise this as probably true on the basis that the Applicant is protecting commercial confidentiality which flies in the face of RICS guidance which requires a transparent and open-book approach to viability matters; they note design and marketing costs at 28% are very high - accepted as true by Arc and comments that overheads and financial charge assumptions are very high. All of these factors undermine the assumptions in the viability outputs and conclusions; Arc recognise that there is no mechanism to ensure the ongoing provision of tourism related development and/or to prevent the hotel elements changing to additional apartments at a later date. In terms of the overall conclusions that it is not disputed that a stand-alone hotel would not be viable on the basis of the hotel element considered as a specific real estate asset/investment opportunity only, no consideration whatsoever has been given to other alternative operating models as referred to in the Isle of Man Hotel Features report such as an investor/operator prepared to invest for the long-term. Our client is clear that the long-term investment option is available for the application site, but it has not been considered by the Applicant, apparently because it does not fit with their speculative business model. In terms of the consideration of potential viability it is necessary, in our view, for there to be specific and clear evidence that there is no market interest in the application site/property as a long-term opportunity for a leisure operator. Such evidence would need to be based on a realistic active marketing exercise of the application site/premises.
It is their clients view is that the option of a viable free-standing hotel/tourism/leisure option is feasible and achievable if a range of operational models are considered. The feel that it is the
==== PAGE 61 ====
17/01265/B Page 61 of 84
applicant's commercial/investment requirements of the site which limit its investment viability and that other requirement/goals, e.g. linking a 40 bedroom hotel to the leisure offer of the adjoining golf course, could enable a longer term investment perspective (as identified in the Hotel features study).
There is no evidence that the Applicant has given any consideration to this approach. The Applicant has, as far as we are aware, undertaken no marketing of the application site to show that it is commercially unviable/unattractive to the market, and the DEFA has no evidence of marketing before it.
Arc conclude that "the principle of some form of apartment/real estates combine with a hotel is an option that could provide an adequate return and justify the hotel scheme creating a resort style development and enabling a hotel being returned to the site". However, it must be recognised that the Arc conclusions are predicated entirely on the assertions and assumptions on viability presented by the Applicants, and that the Applicants viability submissions are not underpinned by a robust and transparent financial viability assessment.
Arc note there is merit in revisiting and updating the basic real estate feasibility in more detail to confirm construction costs and provide the rational for the number and size apartments in proportion to the hotel space in viability terms.
Fundamentally, Arc has been unable to advise on the main key issue raised by DEFA, i.e. to question whether the viability of the mixed-use scheme (based on the submitted information and documents) has demonstrated that the level of non-hotel uses that are required to achieve a viable scheme. Arc refer to the weaknesses and flaws in the evidence supporting the viability assumptions and assertions made by the Applicant and conclude that there is merit in 'revisiting and updating' the detailed viability information.
In response to updated comments on the commercial feasibility issues by the Applicant in 2021, LGCL state that their comments in relation to cruise ship was to demonstrate that the Island is experiencing visitor growth.
LGCL comment that the sales figures for the apartments are underestimated and that significantly greater sales figures could be achieved, and that fewer apartments would be needed if one were to accept FIDL's approach. Details of comparisons of apartment prices in 2018 and 2021 are provided by the objector.
There are no safeguards or guarantees put in place that would secure the continued use of the hotel and not allow for a subsequent change of use, which is a realistic given our concerns that the hotel design and competing apartments from a revenue perspective materialise.
While it is argued that the hotel and the apartments could be mutually beneficial in terms of supporting each other LGCL argue that the apartments could be used on a BnB basis and because of their greater space and views would be a better offer.
LGCL reaffirm their view that the hotel should offer a 'best in class' destination which is developed with investment over time. Whereas GVA/AY comment that a highly rated hotel does not necessarily equal economic viability and that some of those cited are in better more accessible locations, LGCL state that the geographical location of the application site is every bit as good as 'best in class' hotels both in terms of attractive surroundings, its accessibility - quicker to get there by plane than some areas in the UK e.g. Pembrokeshire - and is already served by a golf course. They argue that a hotel on Isle of Man has a far greater population than The Machrie (Isle of Islay) and if designed such that it provides an offer unmatched on the Island would be attractive to a much wider target market.
==== PAGE 62 ====
17/01265/B Page 62 of 84
They also note that the Island has a preferential tax rate. LGCL reiterate their view that the assessment of viability calculated on a 3 to 5 year exit strategy is understood if it solely relates to a company's business strategy focussing on sales and is on a mixed us site, but this should not be applied to re-zoning in a planning context.
LGCL confirm that they believe the proposal to be a sub-optimal offering and this contracts GVA/AY's suggestion that the quality of the product, provision of a destination hotel and spa would be crucial in driving demand. They compare the decision of the Old Course Hotel in St Andrew's which is already one of the best positions of any golf hotel to feel the need to invest in a 4th floor signature bar with glass frontage in order to elevate their property, versus the decision of FIDL to locate their proposed bar and restaurant on the ground floor looking over the car park or entrance road. They state that the hotel rooms would suffer from a major lack of privacy when the outdoor terrace or being next to entrances or the laundry and views would be blocked by parked cars and the golf course berms. They note that in practical terms the delivery of food and drink can only be by the front entrance in front of restaurant users.
LGCL suggest the office space is too small for the amount of management/administration staff such a business should realistically have, the gym is tiny and is highly unlikely to be capable of attracting the level of paying memberships the GVA/AY forecasts; and the bin store is located at the furthest possible point from the kitchen and restaurant areas where significant waste would be created which is a big issue.
They feel that as GVA/AY have previously advised FIDL on the hotel's layout they are now motivated to defend the design. In terms of the difference between GVA/AY's projections for occupancy levels and what LGCL's suggest could be achieved, the latter states they based theirs on industry research on island plus what could be a better and more attractive hotel, spa and leisure offering that could be linked to the golf club . In terms of the impact of COVID LGCL feel that the best case scenario would be that a hotel operator would not open its doors until late 2023 or early 2024. They feel that the desire of people to travel to more sparsely populated safe destinations closer to home would be beneficial, especially if it offers holistic experiential stays. They argue that the present design for the Castletown Links Hotel which as the ARC report independently put it showcases "a distinct lack of unique features and facilities to distinguish this property from being just 'another hotel building' without any 'wow' features" is highly likely to struggle in attracting significant local demand. The offer put forward by Langness Golf Course Ltd to FIDL focuses effort on ensuring a more balanced revenue generation becomes possible between off island visitors and local residents.
LGCL respond to GVA/AY's questioning of their higher forecast food and beverage revenues by stating that they see it as a compliment of facilities used on a daily basis by hotel guests, 450+ golf club members, spa day experience guests, families and partners of golf club members using leisure facilities and other leisure members. LGCL also suggest they would offer a superior product leading to better ADR rates than GVA/AY have suggested in their assessment.
LGCL dismiss the idea that the only investor that would consider a hotel-only type option is one who sees it as a trophy project. They cite Knight Frank in their January 2021 UK Hotel Transactions Trends Report that HNWI/Family offices, with over £1.1 billion of investment, were the most active buyer type during 2020, choosing to deploy capital when they see fit and taking a much longer-term perspective in their investments". The strategy of these people is not how quickly they can seek to exit a hospitality operation of which they have no experience, and that annual yield is a more important number.
The planning application, arguing the necessity of an enabling and large residential development, should be refused on the basis that the Applicant rejected opportunities that would have secured a standalone hotel with better outcomes and less risk for the Applicant, the adjacent Golf Course, the economy and the environment. The Applicant also failed to
==== PAGE 63 ====
17/01265/B Page 63 of 84
pursue other opportunities unrelated to the offers from the owners of the Castletown Golf Links. A list of offers made is provided in the objector's submission.
The comment that the residual method was not used and that Government's Financial Assistance scheme was not taken into account - noting that while this would not be available to the applicants as they are not the proposed operators, it could be available to someone who wanted to develop and run a hotel. They say the planning application sets out to argue that the development and success of the hotel is solely dependent on an enabling (and large) residential development and that the commercial viability of the hotel is predominately measured in development terms whilst very little evidence has been presented to demonstrate its operational sustainability. However, given the clear exit strategy of the Applicant, the planning statement is silent as to the level of financial commitment and management support to be provided by the applicant until such time that a suitable buyer is found. In this regard they make the point that the residential use does not guarantee continued financial input into the hotel. They reconfirm their view that the applicants always considered the site for residential apartments upon their purchase in 2011 noting original plans do not mention hotel, and the approach to GVA/AY, that it is designed with a restaurant to complement the apartments. They note the disproportionate space provided for the residential use to the detriment of the layout and facilities for the hotel.
Drainage They ask that the details of the drainage works to refurbish the pumping station and sections of the rising main are provided, without which it is not possible to assess the impact on the environment, whether protection against erosion is required and the impact on ecology and visual impact.
They do not believe that the ES deals with either the impact of the foul and surface water drainage on the ecology of the area nor the impact of the lighting nor the potential impact of pets within the development. They believe that a coastal change vulnerability assessment should be provided which would set out and consider the risks and consequences associated with the development, including all drainage infrastructure and without it the Department would not be able to take a decision on material matters, in accordance with EP9 and EP11.
In terms of drainage LGCL explain that the drainage system between the existing hotel and Derbyhaven has never been commissioned and is regarded as private. Whilst FIDL now seeks to refurbish the existing foul pumping station and have it adopted by Manx Utilities it is noted that the design, construction and land ownership of where the drains are installed are considerations for any future public adoption.
LGCL note that the existing private sewerage pipe is 63mm in diameter and that in 2000 the Department of Transport (Drainage Division) confirmed that the private drainage system had limited capacity. This is such that even the two-bedroom neighbouring Golf Lodge could not be connected to the hotel drainage system without the provision of an additional pumping station and that there is limited capacity within the drainage infrastructure between the hotel and Derbyhaven as such infrastructure was provided to serve the hotel only. They note detailed discussions with Manx Utilities have not yet been held.
Scale and Landscape Impact They consider that the application contains inadequate information in terms of comparisons between the existing and the proposed development, in respect of floor areas of relevant uses and have commissioned their own assessment of this which reveals that there is a significant increase in floorspace, footprint, volume and visible surface area. They consider the proposal to be not a leisure/tourism-led scheme but a housing led scheme with the bulk of the overall development comprising the residential element.
==== PAGE 64 ====
17/01265/B Page 64 of 84
They believe that the additional mass and volume would detract from the sites of the Ancient Monuments alongside the site, contrary to Environment Policy 40 and the inclusion of the residential development means that the proposal fails to comply with any of the Strategic Plan policies which promote tourism developments. They also contend that the development fails to accord with Recreation Policy 4 in that it does not provide the 1,728 sq m of formal open space, the 576 sq m of children's play space and the 768 sq m of amenity space on site. No proposal is made within the application for the payment of a commuted sum in this respect.
They note the additional comments regarding the visual and landscape impact but remain of the view that the size, scale and massing is significantly greater than the existing. LGCL commissioned technical input from Konarch CGI to produce verified photographic/photomontage imagery and that input in the form of a visual impact study is provided. It picks up key viewpoints within and close to the golf course and to a number of rights of way. They feel that the applicant's images of before and after development are not directly comparable in terms of perspective and provide an unrealistic and potentially misleading comparison. They feel that users of the golf course should be considered in the same way as the public and the Konarch study has focussed on a limited number of views around the 1st and 18th holes stating there are also public views in close proximity to the study viewpoints. They cite the criterion in General Policy 2 that development should not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan. They feel there is potential for the development to significantly devalue the special landscape characteristics and setting of the golf course by such a large and strident building. They retain their view that any form of development that is significantly larger in terms of area and/or volume must inevitably have a significantly greater landscape impact and adversely affect the sense of openness of the area, notwithstanding the nature of design and/or palette of materials. They state that by the applicant's own figures the proposed development would have a volume 121% greater than the existing which is relevant if considering the exception in General Policy 3 (c) previously development land which allows for redevelopment where land contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where the redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment. While they fundamentally disagree that the development should be assessed against General Policy 2, if it is, they argue it fails criterion (e) in that it does adversely affect public views of the sea.
Environmental Impact
They do not believe that the proposal has been assessed in terms of its effect through lighting, on the environment and on the dark sky sites, particularly Fort Island.
They include a submission from Manx Birdlife whose information was sought and used in the submission but who remain concerned about the impact of the development on the wildlife of the area. They suggest that warranties rather than reassurances should be provided in relation to environmental damage and that a contribution to a warden may assist mitigating adverse impacts and would show a long term commitment by the applicant to the protection of the area. They are concerned that increased use of the golf course and foreshore for amenity purposes would increase the risk to species using this habitat and could be contrary to EP4 of the Strategic Plan. Pets (dogs and cats) are a significant threat. They point out a number of inaccuracies and misspellings in the references to birds which cast doubt on the expertise of those involved in the assessment. They consider that more than a single, winter visit to the area is necessary to fully understand the ecology of the area and are concerned that the fact that nests found could not be described more specifically than "hirundine" and that fewer than the full number of species have been recorded within the 2km radius (78 species are listed whereas there are 201 species within the 2km radius). Ringed Plover is not included, which is listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Act and neither is the Grey Plover. They remain concerned at the risk of seepage from the foul water drainage and there are inconsistencies within the
==== PAGE 65 ====
17/01265/B Page 65 of 84
document on the disposal of surface water. They are of the view that the potential negative impacts of the scheme have not been properly assessed (26.01.18). LGCL consider that it is unrealistic to use a S13 Agreement to restrict the ownership of cats as it would rely on the residents' management committee to enforce. They also state that dogs not on leads pose the same risk to bird and wildlife; and that the lack of amenity provided by the development to the residents would cause the residents to use the bay and golf course as their local amenity and effectively transfer the obligation to protect the bird and wildlife and rights of way to nature conservation bodies and the owners of the golf course. They state that from experience visitors frequently do not abide by the rules.
Traffic and Parking
LGCL disagree with the conclusions reached by Brian Hall &Associates in the TAA. They believe that Fort Island Road is not a 'quiet road' and that the traffic generated would place undue strain upon it. They believe it fails to properly assess Saturday periods which are the busiest for the Golf Course and the hotel. They feel that the re-visitation of the TRICS database to separate out the trip rates for HGVs for both hotel and apartments is misplaced and failed to take account of the unique geographic characteristics which distinguishes the Golf Links Hotel from other hotels used in the study. They feel that the statement that Fort Island Road can carry peak hour flows of 66 vehicles in respect of a single lane width is not supported by any practical and site-specific observations or studies. They state that fort Island Road is distinguishable from other access roads referred to by Messrs Hall and Associates in that Fort Island Road leads to an end destination as opposed to providing a thoroughfare. LGCL state that Fort Island Road is uniquely situation on a peninsula and in an ASSI with rich bird life as well as running along the Castletown Golf Links on one side and the Irish Sea on the other. The resultant impact is significant use beyond purely car traffic to including hikers, dog walkers, children with push bikes, horse riders, cyclist, bird watch etc which is significant increase versus other sites mentioned. A recent example is the recent Capital International Golf day that secured 174 entrants with support staff, pro-shop staff, green keepers, restaurant staff etc, it is inconceivable to assume such a low peak time use of Fort Island Road. LCGL also argue that at 17 of the 27 checkpoint locations or 63% of the time the road width is less an 3.4m which is far removed from the benchmarks used in the TAA. The TAA failed to adequately address the Highway Authority's query regarding Saturday traffic by relying on data from a totally removed road, namely Douglas Road in Castletown. LCGL argue that the TAA suggests weekend road usage by all users would be lower based upon a historic assessment on the Douglas Road in Castletown. They argue that these assumptions don't stack up for Fort Island Road which is used more frequently in leisure time, and assuming the hotel does achieve the 30 event per annum, it is likely that a good number of these would take place on Saturdays which would make it perfectly feasible that in excess of 300 cars would be parked in the vicinity - not taking account of other leisure users. LCGL set out their reasoning that too few parking spaces are provided by citing that spaces for hotel staff are not included, space for golfers as per a previous planning application are not included nor are there spaces for staff working in the apartments. They also cite that as the location is not served by public transport that the parking needs are greater than other areas.
Examples of parking by golfers is shown as part of the submission as it photographs of the roadway. LGCL state that the other hotels used as geographical comparators for the TAA differ in nature for various reasons that renders reference to them useless. The differences cited include their locations being near or on the edge of towns, or a main road, access to them being by a thoroughfare and not a dead end, and the dates of the surveys.
LGCL state that no account has been taken of the impact for the demolition of the hotel and bringing in of construction materials. Nor has any account been taken of golf course interference (stray golf balls); or impact on the running of the golf course should Fort Island
==== PAGE 66 ====
17/01265/B Page 66 of 84
Road need to be closed off for any reason or there be other hindrance to its operations. They query who would bear the cost of the losses to that business.
The Herring House, Fort Island Road: Object to the application as residents, members of Derbyhaven Residents' Society, the golf links and custodians and beneficial owners of the golf course since November 2011. They explain that they have experience in the operation of tourist accommodation in the form of a boutique hotel and a large family resort as well as a short course, all in South Africa (pinelakemarina.co.za and brentonhaven.co.za) in addition to the Castletown Golf Links. They fully support the submission made by Langness Golf Course Limited but would also like to voice their personal opinions. They consider that the application is undermined by the lack of interaction and consultation with the local residents who could have informed them of many things, including the Dark Skies, the existing issues with highways and drainage, erosion and prevailing weather. They consider that a three year exit strategy is too short a time frame for a start-up operation and the financial assessment fails to take account of some of the negative factors about the design - the layout and position of the hotel compared with the amenities of the apartments and this may be the main reason why the hotel fails to flourish. The financial assessment fails to include any reference to grants and they suggest that the calculations for the hotel development has been significantly underestimated. They consider that the application is fundamentally flawed and that there is no evidence to suggest why the hotel would not be commercially viable. In addition, they do not consider that the EIA has demonstrated that the development would not adversely affect the environment and heritage as well as the golf course (31.01.18).
In a further letter of 28 November 2018 they state that their interactions with the applicant date back to early 2012 where it became clear that they were committed to a residential development on the hotel site at all costs. They comment on the further clarification provided by the applicant that the estimate of profit of £74 is an indication of the minimum sales value required to break even, shows that commercial success is based on hope that a higher sales value would be realised and that their cut and run policy would leave the aftermath and negative consequences of the development to others. There are negative consequences of the development which would manifest itself in its impact on the bird sanctuary, dark skies and the UNESCO Biosphere designation. They note the rising sea levels and the likelihood of the road to Fort Island becoming inaccessible unless taxpayers money is spent on sea defences, which LGCL has a clear strategy to deal with without burdening the taxpayer. They note comments made about the sewerage system being susceptible to flooding and coastal erosion which Manx Utilities would have to adopt and protect at cost to the taxpayer which is contrary to the Department of Transport's position in 2000 when it said the foul sewerage system is regarded as private as a wayleave agreement and payment had not been concluded. They further comment on the lack of parking for non-residents and the conflict this may cause between golfers and visitors. They suggest that the limited amenity space to be afforded to residents and their pets would cause residents to use the golf course and Derbyhaven Bay as amenity space.
The writers indicated that the proposal is silent on the impact of the development on the operation of the golf course in terms of traffic and the need to wait for it to pass before playing a ball, parking and use of the course as amenity space.
They state that the suboptimal design of the hotel would result in it failing to flourish from a commercial perspective with limited scope for weddings and dissatisfaction from hotel guests and their privacy would be compromised due to positioning of staff quarter, laundry and lifts for residents.
They refer to a refusal on appeal for 4 apartments and 17 residential units in Derbyhaven for reasons of unsustainability and set out that this site is even further away (05/02044/A). They
==== PAGE 67 ====
17/01265/B Page 67 of 84
indicate that the scale of the development would have a negative visual impact for residents, walkers and golfers.
These contributors submit further comments on 14.03.18, including a revised viability assessment provided by their consultants dated 05.02.18. This is referred to in the assessment part of this report.
NB some objections from LGCL are addressed from Herring House as the owners are the same.
Derbyhaven Residents' Society (DRS): Welcome that there is an application to address the development of the site, but disappointed at the size and nature of it. They consider the proposed building to be too large with an associated unacceptable visual impact, contrary to Landscape Policies 22 and 26 of the Area Plan for the South and that it would contravene the Strategic Plan policies against development in the countryside. The area is unsustainable in respect of new development. They do not understand why the financial assessment has not forecast what would happen if the hotel is not viable after 3 years and question whether the owner paid too much for the site which has influenced the financial appraisal. They suggest that the applicant has no experience in operating a hotel so wonder how their statement that the hotel would not be viable without the apartments, can be accepted and note that new hotels in Douglas - the Mannin and developing Premier Inn do not include residential accommodation. They comment adversely on the amenities of the restaurant and hotel rooms compared with those of the apartments and suggest that the amount of traffic which would be generated would not be able to be satisfactorily accommodated on the existing roads. They express concern about drainage and erosion and the proposed location of the pumping station on the beach as well as potential pollution through surface water run-off and wonder why a SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage System) has not been considered. Whilst residents were consulted prior to the submission of the application, their suggestions were ignored (31.01.18)
Their later letter of 29 November 2018 sets out that they feel the applicant's response to the many objections are inadequate. They feel there are three options for the site. Firstly to demolish the existing buildings and return the site to nature which would be the most desirable for the protection of the natural environment, the coastal scenery, for respecting the adjacent historic sites and for valuing the biodiversity of the peninsular plus eliminating burden on drainage, sewerage and other services. Secondly to replace the building with a boutique hotel, no larger and ideally smaller with no residential element, this would meeting the tourism objectives and minimise impact on Langness. The third option, the proposal offered by the applicant, they say is unacceptable and should be rejected for the reasons they have already stated and by reason of its unsustainability as confirmed in a previous planning decision in 2007 and one for a replacement single dwelling at Derbyhaven where the inspector noted that the dwelling would not respect its site or surrounding by reason of its mass, mono-pitch and materials and would create visual harm detracting from the coastal character of the area and the scenic quality of the golf course.
They feel that if these two applications were refused for being too great then surely the impact of 40 new apartments would have a much greater impact.
They dismiss the applicant's arguments that the site is not countryside because of its identification in the Area Plan which reflects the existence of a hotel. They note the hotel was built before consideration of matters such as environmental protection, cultural heritage, protection of the countryside and so on. It is highly improbable that a hotel would ever have been built in this location if such matters were a consideration at that time.
They feel it is absurd that Derbyhaven is considered to be a group of houses in the countryside while considering the part of Langness where the hotel is as not being in the countryside because of a hotel dating back to 1896 is there. Their proposals show no sensitivity to
==== PAGE 68 ====
17/01265/B Page 68 of 84
heritage, biodiversity and sustainability and appear to be justifying why they can guild apartments which they can sell at a profit. They feel the hotel is a Trojan horse permitting them to build apartments which is made clear at their wish to sell the hotel at the earliest opportunity.
They make similar comments as others about the vulnerability of the infrastructure to storm damage and climate change and that this would be a burden for the Government and tax payers. They question how long the Government would be able to retain biosphere status. They reiterate their request for interested person status on the basis of impact of traffic and that every house has a view of the proposal.
Their letter or 4.12.20 responds to the ARC report. They concur that it is an unrivalled coastal location and has the potential to create a high-quality hotel offer. They note that ARC refer to the steady growth in the UK hotel market up to the end of 2019 and the "growing recognition of hotels as an acceptable alternative asset class" but "that this pattern has not been reflected in the Isle of Man to the same extent...[where] the Isle of Man has seen a significant and sustained loss of hotels and large guest houses over the last 10 years. "
DRS feels that this largely illustrates the disconnect between the demand for modern, quality hotel accommodation against the historic over-supply of largely Victorian hotels and boarding houses on Island which have suffered from many years of under-investment, allied to their unsuitability to convert to provide modern en suite accommodation and facilities, without disproportionate levels of investment.
DRS also note that the relative strength of the UK hotel investment market is reinforced by a recent report from Savills which comments that: "While investment volumes have been dominated by London, total deal count outside of London has climbed dramatically since the easing of lockdown, in line with the strong recovery displayed across key UK staycation markets. Robust operational performance is expected for the foreseeable future in light of the ongoing restrictions limiting international travel, with reports of high levels of domestic bookings next summer already in some locations. As a result, interest levels from private investors for coastal and country hotels have surged, with Savills receiving multiple offers above guide price on well-situated regional assets." They also note further evidence of the strength of the wider hotel investment market in recent years as provided by Knight Frank's report with a 42% increase in institutional investment into the hotel market. They note that hotels which sold subject to vacant possession in regional UK witnessed a strong rise in the price per room sold, rising by 14% to £138,000 per room and the average cost per key for hotels sold in the north-west region was £144,000. DRS considers that it is also important to highlight the steps being taken by Visit Isle of Man (VIOM) to develop the Island's tourism market with the aim of increasing visitors by 10,000 a year until 2023 and feel that had it not been derailed by COVID, were well on track to achieve this, arresting the long-term decline shown over the period from 2003 (337,418 visitors) to 2014 (276,900). They feel that post Covid there are reasonable grounds for optimism that the domestic UK travel market would bounce back as national rather than international travel finds a greater appeal and the room occupancy levels of circa 90% seen in some coastal locations in the UK during summer 2020 could boost IOM tourism. In summary, the rather gloomy prognosis for Isle of Man tourism contained on page 29 of GVA/AY's report and supported by pages 14 and 15 of ARC's appraisal is not necessarily borne out by the facts.
They feel that for the advantages of a mixed use scheme there are disadvantages and they have been traditionally been considered to be higher risk/less attractive investments due to the ownership complications, and service charges recovered from multiple parties whose interests may not coincide - the hotel operator and apartment owners in this case.
==== PAGE 69 ====
17/01265/B Page 69 of 84
They state that no reference has been made by either GVA/AY or ARC to the investment value impact of a mixed-use scheme as against a pure hotel scheme. They question the low Achieved Daily Rates (ADR) suggested which they feel is on the pessimistic side for a hotel proposed to be of a high star rating in this location. They accept that the trends and statistics of the wider UK hotel market are relevant in making an assessment of viability but feel that adequate knowledge and understanding of recent investment in the local hotel market is also fundamental in reaching an informed view and they feel that ARC lack that depth of insight.
They cite a number of recent hotel developments on the Island which they believe demonstrates that investors have been prepared to develop schemes that they consider are viable, despite some of the handicaps presented by a seasonal hotel market. They name Mannin Hotel which is £65/night winter and £108/night summer, the Comis which is £107/night winter and £143/night in summer; the Premier Inn £49/night in winter and summer; the Ramsey Park Hotel £89/night winter and £119/night in summer; the Halvard in Douglas where rooms range from £100/£150 to £210/£290 (Halvard Suite); and Brightlife Spa, Andreas at £270/night which is a high quality spa development completed a number of years ago and where it is understood that their rooms are booked up 5 months ahead.
They note that Saville's 2020 report shows interest in coastal and country hotels has surged and this contradicts ARC's final conclusion that "It is not clear at this stage that there would be a significant market of investors willing to acquire a small boutique hotel generating limited cashflow to provide an exit."
They also criticise that 3 years is used as the 'mature trading' period especially when year 5 shows a 18% uplift from year 3, and they query some of the calculations reached. They provide an alternative valuation based on Knight Frank's prices achieved for a comparable hotel and conclude a higher valuation range of £5,380,302 to £6,230,000 for the completed value versus the GVA/AY figure of £4,292,174. They also assert that the test of viability must not be constrained by considering purely FIDL's development approach when another developer or investor's methodology may be entirely focussed on creating a viable hotel development which they feel this is not as FIDL's best interests in the site lie in development profit for a much larger scheme incorporating residential.
They quote that RICS best practice is to use the Residual Method and that ' ... the valuer should apply a minimum of two appropriate and recognised methods to valuing development property for each valuation project .
DRS query the land values used in ARC's report where they state these can be between £5000 to £18000 per room depending on the location without concluding what this might be in respect of Castletown. They criticise the use of £18000 in the valuation reports indicating this is not a major city location, and that land costs ought to be at the lower ends making overall price between £200,000 and £400,000 for the site. They note that references to land costs are confusing given that a figure of £726,000 is used as well as a figure of £2.9million.
They note that the financial information relating to development costs by FIDL is scant and that ARC commented that it has been difficult to compare with market averages given the extremely limited data. They state that as an example there is no information given about how much profit has been incorporated in their calculations and that in the GVA/AY report a total development cost of £7,666,544 is presented as "estimated by Dandara's Quantity Surveyor, inclusive of pre-development costs, land value and professional fees" but it is also stated within the application that the applicant's total development cost/"all in build cost" would be £9,975,000.
DRS raise the matter of the Department's (DEFA's) Operational Policy in respect of S13 Agreements and the viability appraisal advice contained therein; the lack of separation of information in respect of costs e.g. that of demolition separated from construction. They query
==== PAGE 70 ====
17/01265/B Page 70 of 84
ARC's comments in two separate parts of the report where they state construction costs are at the high end and later that they appear to be at the low end. They feel that the indicative range of costs supplied (£75/ft2 to £335ft2) are of absolutely no value unless it is known to which building elements they apply. They say that despite this simplistic assessment ARC has still managed to conclude that a standalone hotel is non-viable without being in possession of robust cost information.
They disagree that it would be unreasonable on the grounds of commercial confidentiality to expect the applicant to release detailed cost data to allow a fair assessment of the applicant's costs to be properly appraised. The applicant has assembled a range of reports to support their planning application but the lack of cost information to support their assertion that a hotel development is non-viable is a major omission. There is no indication of the extent of self- funding or external finance being deployed and the borrowing costs that might apply.
DRS feel ARC's final conclusion leaves room for doubt noting that debate could be had about many of the assumptions used, that a small quality hotel of 40 rooms could make a profit but is not necessarily an attractive or viable financing proposition and that the scheme is noted as being sub-optimal and heavily compromised in favour of the residential units.
They note that the applicants have highlighted that they would not be eligible for grant assistance from DfE as they would not be the operators and that this would be limited in any one case to a maximum of £1m. They feel that it is reasonable to assume that such assistance might therefore be available to another owner/operator therefore could be validly incorporated in a viability assessment.
In conclusion they feel a standalone hotel could be viable if some appropriate adjustments are made to the key elements.
The operator of No. 19 restaurant based in the adjacent Golf Links clubhouse: Seeks access to the application and wish to be aware of the exact proposal (11.12.17)
Seagull Hollow, Old School House, 1 and 2, Marine Court: All submit concerns regarding increased traffic on Fort Island Road and their concerns relate primarily to safety. They confirm that they are not anti-development or against the applicant particularly. They explain that currently there is no pavement on Fort Island Road and when vehicles are parked on the road this increases congestion on the narrow road. To introduce additional double yellow lines here would further restrict on street parking and seek confirmation that further parking restrictions would not be brought in as a result of the development being approved together with the proposed alterations to the junction. They all consider that the conclusion in the Transport Assessment is taken out of the context of the existing narrow road width with no footpath. Existing golf club traffic already speeds along here, making pedestrian use of the road dangerous and the addition of the traffic from the development would make this worse. They question whether Government and the developer could work together to create a by-pass and reduce the projected traffic flow by removing the hotel element. They do not believe that the hotel would be viable and this element of the scheme would create the most traffic, particularly bus and coach traffic. They believe that the majority of residents would accept a smaller scale scheme with no traffic improvements at the junction. They suggest that this has not been mooted by the Derbyhaven Residents' Society as they believe they are influenced by the owners of the golf club and course owners who want to promote their golf business by retaining a hotel and adding leisure timeshare, chalets etc. They would be happy to discuss proposals to alleviate the projected increase in traffic (11.01.18).
4 Windsor House, Port Erin: The writer owns a dwelling on Fort Island Road, supports the views of the Derbyhaven Residents' Society and is particularly concerned that the existing narrow road is unsuitable for the construction traffic associated with the development. They seek assurance from the
==== PAGE 71 ====
17/01265/B Page 71 of 84
applicant that their property, which does not have proper foundations, would not be affected. They are concerned that if the hotel fails to be viable it could be turned into even more apartments which is very different to what people were hoping to enjoy. They do not want the historical and natural beauty of the area to be spoiled. The existing "complete eyesore" which has been allowed to develop is an embarrassment to locals and visitors alike and what replaces it would affect future generations (15.01.18).
Holmstead on Derbyhaven Road: Objects to the application on the basis of the insufficient infrastructure available to accommodate the construction and operation of the scheme. They comment that no regard is currently had to the speed limits and there are no footpaths or cycleways. They are also concerned at the increased wear and tear on local properties (17.01.18).
The Cottage, Derbyhaven: Considers that the overall size of the development is out of keeping with its situation and the strategy outlined in the Area Plan for the South (paragraph 3.4). They consider that the development is larger than the apartment building, Key West, in Douglas and Langness is surely not suitable for this type of development. They consider that the visual impact, particularly the north-west elevation, would dominate one of the most iconic view on the Island, from Derbyhaven village to St. Michael's Isle. They conclude by stating that the development has the capacity to more than double the population in the local area but proposes to use an existing single track road and a sewerage system that is barely capable of accommodating the existing population (18.01.18). The objections are reiterated in their comments of 29 November 2018 where they suggest that if the applicant feels the development should be considered in the whole, in the round and in its fullest context, that the overall volume should be considered as the casual observer would not know of the enclosed courtyard.
Another contributor whose address is given as The Cottage, Derbyhaven objects to the application, considering that the proposal contravenes Landscape Proposal 22 with its increased size and visual impact and the development would mar what is otherwise a spectacular public view from far afield. They comment that there is no public transport to the site and no pavements and the increase in traffic would affect those living in the area and they suggests an independent review of this aspect of the development. The site is identified as being for hotel use on the Area Plan and they consider that those visiting the hotel would be disappointed that the hotel facilities have been "pushed into one corner on the ground floor, overlooking a car park" (29.01.18). In a further letter dated 29 November 2018 the writer comments that the amendments submitted make no adaptation to the size of the building despite numerous objections. The point is made that the area is low lying with low level landscape and an area of outstanding natural beauty and that the visual impact would be enormous and overbearing particularly from Fort Island itself and from Derbyhaven Bay as well as from further afield. The intention to sell the hotel at the earliest opportunity shows a lack of commitment to the future success of the hotel element and this is reflected in its design which is limited to the ground floor with views across the car park. Only a few hotel rooms have unrestricted sea views comparable to the upper floor apartments. The reception areas have limited space which would restrict the hotel's ability to facilitate such functions as weddings and conferences which would surely be an attractive source of income.
The Haven, Derbyhaven: The writer seeks clarification on how the proposed footpath which is proposed to be introduced alongside their property which sits on the south western side of the junction of the Derbyhaven and Fort Island Roads and is concerned about potential water ingress from the roadside. They are disappointed that the applicant has not consulted them to discuss this. They have an historic door step and cannot see how this would be incorporated into the footpath. They are concerned about the impact of construction traffic and reports that when the bus used to come to Derbyhaven, as well as when HGVs pass the house, it shakes. They do not see any need for
==== PAGE 72 ====
17/01265/B Page 72 of 84
the highway alterations, which would also take away well used on street parking for local residents (22.01.18).
Harbour House, Derbyhaven: Their property sits on the northern side of the junction of Derbyhaven and Fort Island Roads. They object to the application on the basis that the construction traffic would adversely affect their house and they do not accept the vibration assessment in the application. Their experience of traffic during the creation of the berms at the golf course was that there was detectable shaking. They advise that they have recently re-rendered his property and seek the cost of repair should any damage ensue. This should also apply to other residents. A bypass would be preferable. They comments on the lack of parking for local people and the fact that the proposal may reduce this. They are also concerned about the level of traffic after construction considering that Fort Island Road has no pavement and is narrow. They remain unconvinced that the highway network could cope satisfactorily with the increase in traffic. Finally, they consider the proposed building to be "over the top" in mass, regardless of its function, is too large, obtrusive and not at all in keeping with its location. They consider that the local community would be better served if the building were demolished and the site returned to nature. They would like to see an architectural design more in keeping with the location, following the lead perhaps of the Calf Sound café (23.01.18).
Flat 4, Marine Court: The writer sets out that they are an ecologist and conservation professional with 37 years' experience. They draw attention to the provisions of Environment Policy 2 and consider that it is for the developers to demonstrate that their proposal complies with this. They consider that the building is too large and a reasonable comparison of existing and proposed populations would be with Derbyhaven (a doubling of the population) not the parish of Malew (a 1.92% increase) as suggested by the applicant. The site is not designated for residential use and if approved, this development could open the door to additional residential use of sensitive sites. Their primary concerns are related to the impact on ecology and they consider that the EIS is inadequate. They explain that the IOM has become party to the Convention of Biological Diversity which commits the Island to reducing the direct pressures on biodiversity and promoting sustainable use and also to improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity. They consider that the development adds to the pressures on biodiversity and threatens the status of habitats and species. They refer to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance and notes that the site was identified as part of a potential Ramsar wetland site in 2004 with the coast here meeting that criteria. They also refer to the adjacent ASSI and the recent designation of the Island as having Biosphere Reserve designation, Environment Policy 4 and suggests that, as identified by the applicant in the EIA, the site has a high ecological sensitivity and that the development has a high potential impact. They consider that the proposed mitigation is "woefully inadequate" and fails to recognise that the hotel and associated apartments would in combination with current recreational pressure be highly detrimental to the "Special Interest" of Langness.
They refer to the intertidal zone and suggests that it is more than "shingle/cobbles" and that it is incorrect to state that Schedule 1 protected birds are not dependent upon this habitat. They also disagree that the effects on wintering birds are considered temporary as this takes no account of the additional recreational pressure created by doubling the population of Derbyhaven. The eelgrass in the gully is a protected species (not acknowledged in section 1.7.5) and susceptible to changes in salinity and silt deposition. They consider that there are no assurances that these areas of the ASSI would not be impacted nor are there any consents to "operations likely to damage the special interest". They refer to ringed plover, house martins, grey seals, lesser mottled grasshoppers, all of which could be affected by residents' dogs and cats and a restriction on this must be considered. They are critical of the absence of a reference to the runway extension and other threats to wildlife from walkers, divers, runners, off-road cyclists, water skiers, kite and wind surfers all of which contribute to the cumulative impact of the development and which have not been considered.
==== PAGE 73 ====
17/01265/B Page 73 of 84
They recommend that native species only should be introduced for landscaping of the site (not sea buckthorn which is an invasive species) and that opportunities have been missed to offset the expected negative impacts on the special interest of the area and draws attention to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 for the Department to enter into legal agreements to deliver community benefits and this is an opportunity where such an agreement could be used to manage the increasing detrimental pressure of reckless and un-informed recreational activities on the special biodiversity for which the area is designated with such an agreement paying for wardens, signage and facilities. The protection of the ecological value of the site is in the interests of tourism as well as for its own sake. Finally, they recommend that the development should be smaller and comprise only of a hotel. If residential development is included, they recommend that there should be a way of restricting pets and that there should be a change to the arrangements for the disposal of surface water to avoid the gully and eelgrass, the upper shore should be protected from disturbance to ringed plovers, mitigation for house martin nest sites should be provided and something provided to indicate how disturbance to grey seals would be avoided (27.01.18).
In a further letter the writer remains concerns about lack of adequate ecological safeguards and the scale of the development in such a significant and sensitive site. They believes the site creates an unparalleled opportunity to marry superb environment and wildlife with high quality visitor facilities where people can be introduced to the best wildlife experiences the island can offer. The design completely fails, it provides mass residential provision and a small hotel.
They welcome the changes made in the amended submission but feel they are small sops that fail to address the major impact of the development on the nationally important site. The writer also points out that the area is now surrounded by a Marine Nature Reserve adding to the designations of Bird Sanctuary, ASSI and a candidate Ramsar wetland site of international significance and states that it is a core zone of our Biosphere Reserve because it has these designations.
The writer suggests that if Government is minded to approve it in spite of the nationally important ecology then conditions with respect to a valid study on the impact of wintering and migratory wildfowl and waders; the provision of a fund to warden and enforce conservation byelaws; a method statement to deal with polluted silt and oil; a planting plan; the establishment of an ecological clerk of works (noting the gap between the EIA and what information is provided to contractors).
The writer refers to small scale hotels on sensitive sites on islands to show that it can be done, e.g. the Green Solution House in Bornholm and they refer to five sustainable tourism principles
The writer criticises the approach taken for not adopting those principles and suggests that rather than taking into account the sensitive nature of the site has offered it as a playground for new residents.
They argue that the Arc report is unimaginative and takes no account of the role of the site in a recognised high quality landscape and ecosystem, in making a small high quality hotel viable. It was based on averages and this is not an average site. (4.12.20)
The letter of 12.7.21 notes the latest amended plans relate mainly to highways matters, cycle and bin stores and EV charging points and states that their objections still stand.
A letter from an additional owner of 4 Marine Court is also concerned at the significant adverse visual impact of the proposal on human receptors and that it is too large and inappropriate for
==== PAGE 74 ====
17/01265/B Page 74 of 84
its surroundings. They raise concerns that the lighting would result in a huge glowing mass which is inappropriate for the landscape made up of one of the island top wildlife sites and an international golf course. They also raise concerns as to how dust and asbestos are to be dealt with. They feel that the traffic arrangements including that coaches would attempt to swing around the junction of Fort Island Road and Derbyhaven Road involving the vehicle crossing to the right side of the road at a blind exit and corner houses are shown as curved when in reality they have square corners.
6, Marine Court, Derbyhaven Road: Concern is expressed that the existing tower, which is not indicative of the overall height of the existing building has been taken as the guide to the overall height of the proposed building and what is proposed would double the visual impact of the building as viewed by local residents. The writer is of the view that the footprint of the building has been increased. They note that many of the hotel rooms have little or no view due to their level. They are concerned that there would not be sufficient car parking and notes that 12 car parking spaces must remain available to the golf club as provided and required in earlier applications (09/01934/B) (24.01.18).
This contributor comments further on 16.10.18, suggesting that nothing has changed and the development is still an "ugly large building block 60% more than original".
Cameron Court, Fort Island Road: Object to the application. They consider that their views would be adversely affected, the financial viability for a hotel only has not been considered, there is insufficient car parking provision, the road infrastructure is not suitable and the representation of the visual impact is disingenuous. They also note that the population of the settlement would be almost doubled by the development, and advise that they are members of the golf club. They state that the site is zoned for hotel use and if this is not financially viable, other uses for the site should be considered. However, they consider that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that the various operating methods and construction of the hotel were considered and not found to be financially viable. They suggest that the applicant could apply for a grant of around £2.6m for a hotel only development along with additional marketing grants which have not been mentioned. Cost savings could be applied to reduce the overall cost. They do not accept that the figures provided and suggest that either the value of the apartments have been understated or the costs overstated. No alternative scenarios for numbers of hotel bedrooms have been considered nor any reference to non-serviced accommodation, referring to the Government's commissioned report by GVA/AY.
Whilst the applicant's commissioned report by GVA/AY refers to competition, the owners of Cameron Court consider this to be contradictory given that one of the competitors is a scheme enabled by the applicant themselves (the 100 bed hotel in Douglas), suggesting that there is sufficient demand for both and they suspect that the Castletown Golf Links site was owned prior to the formulation of the plans for the hotel in Douglas. The apartments could be let on AirBnB which could undermine the success of the hotel [planning officer's comment: it should be noted that planning approval would be required and the units would be required to be registered with Department for Enterprise], particularly as they have superior views and a competitive advantage. They dispute the right of the applicant to use some of the roadways they consider that they can. The traffic generated by a hotel may be covered by the designation of the site. However the residential element is not. They criticise the Transport Assessment's calculation of traffic as it does not include the average 100 plus golfers who use the roads on Saturdays and it makes no note of the existing parking issues. No reference is made to the possibility of the golf clubhouse being used for functions. They suggest that whilst the evidence states that there have been limited accidents, there are incidents of damage to vehicles - from golf balls for example, which are not officially reported or recorded. More traffic would mean more incidents.
==== PAGE 75 ====
17/01265/B Page 75 of 84
They express concern that deliveries and coaches may park in front of the hotel bedrooms facing St. Michael's Isle which is unfortunate. They consider that the development does not meet the requirements of Strategic Policy 10 or General Policy 2 as the site is not close to any public transport links and therefore maximises private journeys and the safety of road users would be impacted by the substantial increase in traffic on Fort Island Road. They note that the applicant's Transport Assessment suggests that the average traffic generated by the residential portion is based upon twenty four dwellings whereas the development is for forty 2 and 3 bed units. They are critical of the timing assessment for journeys as it fails to take into account the waiting time for drivers allowing other vehicles to pass at narrow parts and they suggest that the capacity of the road is reduced for this reason. They note that erosion is happening and something should be included to ensure that the development does not exacerbate this. They express concern at the efficacy and safety of the proposed highway improvements around the junction of Fort Island and Derbyhaven Roads, particularly for coaches, and that it does not refer to parked vehicles which reduce the available width of the road as well as other parts of the road network.
They are concerned that the visual impressions include greying out of elements of the scheme which do not give a true representation of the impact and that the actual impact would be far greater than what is shown in some of the drawings. They are also critical that no visualisation has been provided from Hango Broogh from where the visual impact would be considerable (30.01.18).
In a further letter the residents express concern as to how the building has been allowed to dilapidate and argue that this is likely in the hope of any development to be seen as an improvement and/or the zoning be changed to residential. They argue that an order should be made to demolish the building in 12 months with gardens being created in its place until an appropriate way to develop the site is found.
They argue that rather than the residential enabling the hotel, the applicant is incorporating a hotel to enable the residential development. They feel it unconscionable that the neighbours should pay the price of the long term strategy of keeping the site in an appalling state in order that they can develop apartments 'since anything is better than this'.
They set out that the site would be overdeveloped putting additional pressure on local infrastructure and would compromise the marketability of the area for tourist purposes. They feel that if the applicant cannot access grants because they are developers rather than tourist operators should not be used as an argument in the viability as they could sell the site to operators who could get such a grant and therefore the site would be more viable as a tourist proposition.
They supplement their earlier views that there would be an adverse impact on traffic flows, that the overtopping of The Promenade leads to its closure periodically.
They argue that the UK advice being relied upon does not take into account individual circumstances and that the access does not even meet the minimum standards. The road is less than 5 metres wide and is therefore single lane with traffic waiting in laybys. The road runs through the property of Langness Golf Course and adjacent to one of the holes, the increase in traffic would affect the playability of the hole with delays for golfers and would impact on that business. There would be greater tension on Saturdays when the hotel may hold weddings or other events when golfers are playing not only in increased journey times but also as a result of insufficient parking. They also note that the amended plans, relocating the parking to an area of green space, would be near the 18th green. They feel that there is a likelihood of golf balls hitting cars and feel that the positioning of them should be refused on health and safety grounds as well as the impact of the parking on views from the golf holes.
All of these factors impact on the attractiveness of the golf course as a tourist proposition.
==== PAGE 76 ====
17/01265/B Page 76 of 84
The writer's further raise concerns about the impact of human encroachment on the environment and what impact that is having on animal numbers. They state that the applicant's plans with more windows would result in higher light pollution through reflection alone never mind the lights being on insider the building. They feel this would impact on bird life as other commentators have submitted
Reference is made to change in sea levels and the Government study 'National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion' and that Derbyhaven Bay is the 6th most at risk. They state that this ranking is without there being residential development on the site and if there were then the potential economic and environmental damage would result in an increased risk consideration which would push it up the ranking.(30/11/18)
In letter of 11.12.20 they comment on the highways and parking aspect of the proposal indicating that due to its rural location and lack of public transport normal parking standards are not appropriate. They comment in respect of how this can be controlled. They comment on the increase chance of conflict from the 'road hole' (the 5th). They believe little account has been taken of the potential of climate change to result in the loss of the access road altogether. They suggest using UK traffic data is incorrect and that due to how people park and the single lane aspect of the road flows are 'stop and go'. They point out that where there are to be changes to the junction at Fort Island Road and Derbyhaven Road, the residents' cars that are ordinarily parked there would be displaced, but it doesn't say where to, and other locations could also be problematic. The Golf Lodge: The Golf Lodge lies to the south west of the golf clubhouse. They object to the application on the basis of inadequate road infrastructure, visual impact and the effects of the development on the environment. They suggest that whilst the Strategic Plan describes Derbyhaven as an unsustainable location for residential development, what is proposed would create a satellite village which would nearly double the population of the area. Interestingly, a proposal for 24 houses at the entrance to Derbyhaven was refused in 2007 for reasons including it being an unacceptable location for this amount of housing. If Derbyhaven is not a sustainable location then Fort Island cannot be. The likely demand for facilities would peak on a Saturday which coincides with the busiest time for the golf course and clubhouse, particularly when competitions are being held. They consider that there is insufficient parking provided for the development. They are critical at the lack of protected, undercover parking for guests, given the prevailing weather and provide photographs of the existing damage being done to the verges alongside Fort Island Road and they suggest that there should be proper sea defences in place before any further development is allowed. There should be a guarantee of water quality after any sewage system is introduced. They refer to Tourism Proposal 1 and suggests that the development fails to comply with it as the development increases its visual impact and they are critical that the visual images are not true to impact. They are concerned about the impact of the development on the Dark Skies and the ecology of the area, making reference to potential damage by dogs and cats. (30.01.18). They provide photographs of flooding of the area taken on 02.03.18 on 12.03.18.
The residents write further to confirm their view that the application should be refused due to the potential environmental damage to the natural environment, dark skies, seascape and landscape views and the infrastructure not being capable of sustaining the development (30/11/18)
Balladoyle, Fort Island Road: Object to the application on the basis that the land use designation is not for residential. Even if the case was made that the land is previously developed, the policy is clear that this does not mean that the whole of the site can be developed for housing. They consider that the site is in an unsustainable location, supported in the decision to refuse residential development at the tractor shed (08/01931/REM). They are concerned that the development is much larger and higher than the existing and a substantially greater visual impact contrary to Landscape Policy
==== PAGE 77 ====
17/01265/B Page 77 of 84
22, Environment Policies 1 and 2 and Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan. They disagree that the development "would not increase landscape impact significantly" and that "there would be no impacts upon the landscape of the area". They do not believe that the landscape report can be relied upon and consider the visual images misleading. They comment that the applicant suggested in the redevelopment of the golf clubhouse that this should be two storeys, not three (12/00443/B) and if this was the case, surely five storeys must also be unacceptable. They wish for this position by the applicant to be recorded. They consider that the proposed modern and urban style of the building is inappropriate for the location and the materials should enable the building to blend into the surroundings not stand out as they would. They express concern at the adequacy of the road network to cope with the additional traffic and at the potential risk to the road of flooding and undermining and note the increase in population of the area as a result of the proposals. They comment at the potential impact of cats, referring to Malta where there are few birds due to cats being present. They consider that the development would result in an adverse visual impact for users of the peninsula and their optimal solution is for the building to be demolished and the site returned to nature which is reflected in Landscape Proposal 22. Approving development would make it more difficult for Government and the local authority to compulsorily purchase the site or the issue of a demolition order to achieve the optimal solution. They indicate that they would have no objection to the development of a small boutique hotel with no permanent residential component, catering for short breaks and long weekends which they believe, is a growing market. This could include spa facilities and would not need to be any higher than 2 storeys. In the event of approval being granted, they believe that conditions should be attached to require the site to return to nature if the hotel use is no longer required, to require the applicant to enter into a Section 13 planning agreement "in favour of the Government and any local residents wishing to be joined in" and that the building should be no higher than the background landscape as viewed from around Derbyhaven Bay (ie roughly the height of the golf clubhouse). (30.01.18).
In a further letter of 22 November 2018 they reaffirm their objection indicating little changed as a result of amended plans. They doubt the offer or a clause for no cats would be effective and feel it doesn't cover the issue of dogs who have a natural hunting instinct.
Following receipt of the ARC report they comment on 4.12.20 that their previous comments still stand, that they would not object to a well-designed boutique hotel with no permanent residential component and that if this is not viable then the site should be returned to its natural state. There is no overriding national need for a hotel on the site that would justify breaching the Island's planning policy framework to finance it; especially as additional major hotels have opened or re-opened since the planning application was submitted.
20, Athol Street, Douglas: Writer owns an unspecified property in Derbyhaven but who indicates that they have no direct interest in the site has no objection to development per se but considers the proposed building "plain ugly" and is concerned about traffic flows during and post construction , damage to local roads, the safety of pedestrians and the narrowness of the road network (31.01.18).
Whitburn, Shore Road, Castletown (and owner of apartment 4 Marine Court, Derbyhaven): The writer clarifies that they are a naturalist, wildlife tour leader, freelance environmental consultant, former president of La Societe Guernesiase and honorary marketing manager for the Alderney Bird Observatory and until recently was joint secretary of the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, Southern Oceans Working Group. They consider the EIA as "woefully deficient" and is concerned that it may have misled the applicant, who they describe as "a highly respected building firm" into submitting an application which fails to take into account the environmental significance of the site including the considerable potential of the site as an eco-tourism destination. They consider that the EIA falls short of the standards set out by the CIEEM and considers it may be deliberately misleading or is simply a deficient piece of work which has failed to adequately advise the company directors. The comparison in the
==== PAGE 78 ====
17/01265/B Page 78 of 84
EIA to the population of Malew is irrelevant (compared with the relevance to the local population of Derbyhaven). They recommends that the development would affect the most iconic Manx bird species - Manx shearwater, red-billed chough, pale bellied Brent goose as well as grey seals, lesser mottled grasshopper. They refer to the status of the Island as a UNESCO Biosphere and the Langness Peninsular and ASSI as a Core Terrestrial Zone defined as comprising "a strictly protected ecosystem that contributes to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation". The nearest Sustainable Development (Transition) Area is about a mile away. No reference is made in the EIA to grey seals and they can think of no mitigation measures which would mitigate against the impact on them during construction work.
They make comments on pipistrelle and Lesser noctule bats which are in the area. They suggest that mitigation against impacts on birds may be possible with a ban on all activity on the beach head between the site and Derbyhaven with the erection of suitable screens and provision of wardens to ensure that the public and contractors do not disturb birds during the construction process along with the avoidance of loud noises above high tides during construction. Mitigation of the potential impact from domestic animals should also be designed with a ban on the keeping of dogs and cats and a ban on dog walking between Hango Broogh and Stinky Dubb. Consideration should be given to the lighting, given the proximity of the St. Michael's Isle Dark Skies status, ensuring that lights from the building to not attract passing Manx shearwaters. They are amazed that the EIA did not pick up the potential damage to this species and should damage occur, this is likely to be highly publicised. Any building should be below the skyline as viewed from the sea and the applicant is encouraged to introduce a rat eradication scheme similar to that on the Calf of Man in the hope that Manx shearwaters would return to the peninsula to breed. They are critical of the EIA not being able to identify whether the nest found was a house martin or swallow, the lack of identification of active nests, the identification of curlew and kittiwake as nesting birds when they are not in this location, the underestimation of the impact of increased usage of the surrounding area by people and animals, the reliance upon other developments' surveys and the absence of identified mitigation or action should species be found during works. They suggest that the applicant provides an ex-gratia payment to Manx Birdlife in recognition of the work done preparing corrected information in respect of the application and their suggestions for eco-tourism development which would be more appropriate here. One could have a hotel and associated field study centre which, if it included a large function room, could be used for weddings (undated but received on 31.01.18).
They submit further correspondence on 31.0.18 related to traffic congestion, suggesting that the transport assessment has omitted to refer to the veterinary business on Shore Road which is busy and where vehicles have been damaged through parked vehicles restricting the width of the carriageway. The present congestion on this stretch of road is not referred to nor any mitigation proposed.
A third letter was received on 31.01.18 supporting the comment in the EIA that the development would have a significant adverse visual impact and suggests that the proposed lighting would have an adverse impact. They comment that no reference has been made to the presence of asbestos in the existing building and is concerned that if any is being removed contaminated dust may be released to properties alongside Fort Island and Derbyhaven Roads. They also note that brake failure of lorries coming from the site could result in damage to their property, coaches would have to swing out around a blind corner to accommodate the junction and that properties have square, not rounded corners as shown in the proposed plans.
In a further letter dated 1.7.21, they state that previous concerns remain - the addition of residential units would be detrimental to the surrounding ASSI, Marine Nature Reserve, Biosphere Core Zone and the island's very first Bird Sanctuary; the increase in traffic through Derbyhaven would be detrimental to the area detracting from the amenity value of the area, especially tourism, thus making an otherwise viable boutique hotel difficult to run profitably.
==== PAGE 79 ====
17/01265/B Page 79 of 84
The increase in traffic would make the popular walk from Castletown to Derbyhaven, already a 30pmh zone, dangerous. They feel the increase in traffic would make the Promenade, Castletown, and Shore Road (with its busy Vet's Surgery) dangerous and detrimental to the houses in Shore Road and the Promenade, Castletown. They refer to the St Mark's Elms controversy.
7 The Crescent. Derbyhaven: Supportive of a thoughtful redevelopment of the site into a small hotel, but opposes the inclusion of any residential accommodation. They consider that the Area Plan does not support this and notes that previous applications for residential development in the area have been refused (citing 05/02044/A). They consider that the current proposal is not economically justified and would have an adverse impact on the area (31.01.18).
6 The Crescent, Derbyhaven: Object to the application on the basis that it would have an adverse impact on the natural landscape where there are 8 Ancient Monuments and three Registered Buildings as well as an ASSI as well as the inter-tidal area of Derbyhaven and Sandwick bays meet the criteria for designation as a wetland of international importance (RAMSAR). They comment that the Island is also signatory to the Convention to the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the Manx Marine Environmental Assessment 2013 found that the gully to the east of the causeway is one such important habitat considered to be of regional importance and merits protection. They are critical that the eelgrass gets only a passing mention in the EIA. They suggest that the development does not meet the very high standards reasonable to be expected for such a sensitive location in respect of surface water drainage discharging into an ecologically sensitive area, foul drainage utilising a pump station on land subject to erosion as well as the existing water and sewer mains being under a road subject to erosion and sea level rises, noted in JBA Consulting's June 2016 report to Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture - National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion. Breaching of either the pumping station or the pumping main could give rise to extensive pollution. No mitigation is proposed in this respect and the matters do not appear to have been given proper consideration despite the Strategic Plan stating in Environment Policy 13 that this is an issue. They do not disagree that the existing building is detrimental to the environment and agrees that there is a welcome opportunity to replace it with a well-designed new development of an appropriate scale that would be far more in keeping with its surroundings. However, this is not what is proposed. They suggest that the landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is "deeply flawed" and severely under-represents the actual visual impact that would occur. They provide photographs which they feel illustrates this and suggest that if realistic images had been used the conclusion would be that the resulting impact would be major in respect of landscape character and cultural heritage.
They suggest that the development would contravene Environment Policy 40 in respect of the impacts on the Ancient Monuments and Landscape Proposal 22 of the Area Plan. They suggest that if National Heritage Areas were designated, as provided for in the Strategic Plan, this would be one and this justifies a high level of protection. They refer to the application for the replacement of the golf club house, noting the current applicant's then comments about the height and also the Department's concern about this.
They suggest that if the existing hotel had been owned by someone wishing to operate a hotel, it may be in operation today. They query why the applicant spent so much on acquiring the site and wonder why no details have been provided of the person who provided the independent valuation and costings and are critical that a number of the costs are not detailed and suggests that many of the costs are subjectively assessed. They refer to other hotel developments on the Island which have not benefitted from residential additions (Mannin, Premier Inn, Mount Murray, Ramsey Park) (30.01.18).
==== PAGE 80 ====
17/01265/B Page 80 of 84
In a further letter the residents comment that a sustainable drainage system should be considered with petrol interceptors. That they are not reassured in respect of surface water discharge where there are Eel Grass beds. They are concerned that the reno mattress would not be as effective given predicted rising sea levels. They feel that the pumping station and pumping main could be vulnerable due to rising sea levels and such risk would pass to the public purse as they are under threat of coastal erosion and flooding. They state concerns that the development would place a future burden on the taxpayer to introduce expensive flood protection to protect or repair the infrastructure while also exposing the ASSI to pollution from a breached main or pumping station. They feel that the pumped main which is 50mm would not comply with building control. They feel that sewers serving more than 10 dwellings should normally have a minimum diameter of 150mm. This could have an impact on the ASSI if insufficient. Further confirmation as to the adequacy should be sought from Manx Utilities.
They concur that volume is only one measurement to assess impact of development in the landscape, but it cannot be argued that a 121% larger building by volume cannot but fail to have a significant impact on landscape and visual impact. The applicant has not challenged the surface area or footprint calculations of LGC.
They refer to a decision on application 17/01312/B in respect of a replacement dwelling in Derbyhaven and the application of Housing Policy 14 that the proposal should not have a floor area more than 50% greater so that the resulting impact is appropriate for the countryside and that such an approach should be equally applicable to the site. The applicant should not be rewarded with a favourable consent to remove the blight. They criticise the methodology used for the LVIA being misleading with photographs failing to properly present the human eye's perspective of the development from various viewpoints and no and information given on the camera lens used. They provide photographs using a 100mm ends which they argue provides for a more honest representation of the mass of the existing building and feel that the proposed building would be unsympathetic in the landscape with little regard to the natural contours.
They feel the LVIA understatement applies to the impact on St Michael's Isle and Hango Broogh and feel that the setting of the ancient monuments would be prejudiced to an unacceptable degree - all in conflict with the policies of the Strategic Plan.
The note that the applicant objected to the proposal by LGCL (12/00443/B) for a 3 storey building on the grounds that its height and appearance the proposed building would have an adverse impact on this sensitive location, that the setting merits a more imaginative high quality building and that the height would harm the outlook from and the environment within the hotel.
Great Meadow, Malew As owner of land on the Langness Peninsula objects to the application considering that the development extends onto land which not currently built on and comprises mainly apartments. They consider that the proposal would not enhance the golf course, would have an adverse impact on highway safety (31.01.18).
5 The Crescent, Derbyhaven: Objects to the application, supporting the submission by Derbyhaven Residents' Society and criticising the photographs included in the application as being taken with a wide angled lens and being of generally poor definition and provides his own version of the photographs (31.01.18).
1 The Crescent, Derbyhaven: Objects to the application on the basis that it contravenes the Area Plan in respect of the loss of tourist accommodation with the tourist facilities given poor amenities within the scheme. They wonder what would happen if the hotel becomes unviable in the future and whether it
==== PAGE 81 ====
17/01265/B Page 81 of 84
would be sold as private apartments. They feel the access is too narrow and the drawings seem to show a rather ordinary exterior of concrete and glass with the magnificent views being available only to occupiers of the apartments (16.02.18).
5, High View Road, Douglas: No objection to the application but is concerned at the failure of note of the house martin colony if the building is demolished and that the company undertaking the EIA did not know what breed of bird had made the nest. Further details of the materials of any overhang should be provided so that their suitability for nests can be assessed and the applicant should include at least 10 man-made house martin nest boxes on the development (07.01.18)
Marina House, Bay View Road in Port St. Mary: Express concern at the routing of the surface water run-off into the gully to the north east of the plan as this gully contains eelgrass which would be adversely affected by the change in salinity of the water and an increase in sedimentation. The loss of eelgrass would be a loss of amenity to the diving and snorkelling communities who regularly access the site to observe and record the marine creatures there. Eelgrass, they suggest is increasingly rare and provide a nursery for small fish. Discharging the surface water to Derbyhaven Bay would have less impact as there is no eelgrass and no prospect of it. Consideration should also be given to the prevention of damaging sediment being allowed to enter the gully (08.01.18).
3 Costain Close in Colby: Concerned about the impact of the development on the 5th hole (the Road Hole) which runs adjacent to the access road and they consider that something is required to prevent this hole from being closed in the future. They also question why the maintenance of the pumping system and prevention of pollution should be a public cost (23.01.18).
8 Douglas Street, Castletown: Suggests it is essential that this derelict site is properly developed as it is presently an eyesore on the landscape. However, the present plans do not do justice to either the historic St. Michael's Isle or the preservation of a site of natural beauty. They describes the development as "a group of portacabins and sea containers bolted together" and suggests stone work and castellations and preservation of the old hotel tower would acknowledge the history of the site (25.01.18).
This contributor has seen the amended information and asks that the architect's illustration of the scheme from the old pool area be supplemented by further impressions from all four sides but having seen the further drawings is not able to say that improvements have been made (09.10.18).
Douglas Street, Castletown Objects as the proposed building is too big. They hope that a new and attractive hotel would stand in place of the wreck of the existing but are not at all impressed with the new design which does not reflect the flavour of the architecture of the Isle of Man and exceed the existing footprint. The visual impact is of a much larger group of buildings which would be a very unpleasant site from St. Michael's Isle as well as further afield. They suggests that St. Michael's Isle is of particular importance for its stunning views and rich history and the Hango Broogh would be adversely affected by any increase in size and bulk. They wonder why the hotel bedrooms have poorer views than the apartments and where the associated vehicles would be parked. They express concern at the impact on the local roads and wonders whether 15 - 20 apartments would be more appropriate (25.01.18).
The Old Parsonage Barns, St. Mark's: The development of apartments on the site would be a retrograde step and would bring 50- 100 people, perhaps more on a permanent basis. These residents would be driving in and out on a road which is not built for that level of usage and parking would be another problem.
==== PAGE 82 ====
17/01265/B Page 82 of 84
Many people may walk, adding to the numbers of people who already use the footpaths and possible disturbance to wildlife and heritage sites. They suggest that residents may own pets which could foul and be a hazard to wildlife, golfers and perhaps the golf course itself. They suggest that the lighting associated with the development would adversely affect the adjacent Dark Skies site and that the images provided in the application are misleading as they make the proposal look smaller than it would be. Something akin to the original but without the extensions would be more suitable. A hotel, without the apartments is what is needed and would benefit the area (25.01.18).
This contributor reiterates her views on 24.10.18, that having anything more than a small hotel here would spoil this wonderful area for ever and a "pile of boxes" would not fit in with the beautiful scenery. They do not believe that there would be sufficient car parking for all of the hotel guests and visitors and the parking lots would not enhance the beauty of the area. They believe a small cafe would be the best use of this site.
5, Windsor Terrace, Douglas: Queries there is emphasis in respect of amenity and scale for the apartments when the hotel facilities are inadequate for the number of guests. Whilst they accept that the Island is in need of function venues capable of accommodating larger events, in this case, the facilities are located some distance from the hotel kitchens without toilets and which would result in the loss of car parking spaces if in use. There is no bridal suite nor separate meeting rooms for business meetings although this is mentioned in the applicant's Planning Statement (Pt1, page 9). They suggest that views which were previously available to users of the former hotel are not available in the new scheme and the apartments are likely to keep the open area of the hotel dark for most of the day. There would be a significant increase in size of the built development and the impact would be adverse to the detriment of the golf course which they suggest is recognised as one of the finest links course settings in the British Isles. The development is not in accordance with the Area Plan proposals, is not a high quality hotel which differs from others on the Island other than by its location and would not offer facilities which are not already offered in other locations and the leisure facilities are unlikely to accommodate more than a few people at a time. What is proposed would not stand out as the Island's premier hotel which it ought to be, given its location and all the other advantages it has on its doorstep (07.02.18).
This contributor submits further comments on 15.10.18, suggesting that the additional information does not significantly change the submission and they maintain their objection.
In response to the additional submission by GVA/AY if 17.6.21 the writer states in a letter dated 24.6.21 that they appear to focus on the building alone with little or no sympathy to its location or the needs of the Island community for a facility to cope with larger events in the south of the Island, having initially suggested weddings could be hosted in an outside tent, they now suggested these be given over to their competitors and in response to concerns about spa facilities they state that sea views are not important, which given the location seems extraordinary and that yoga can be held outdoors, presumably this would be in the car park given the limited space around the hotel site. The proposal carries no wow factor and would be an opportunity missed.
Thie Yuan, Port St. Mary: Previously involved in the campaign to protect public access to the footpaths at Langness, seeks a condition which requires the applicant to ensure that the public right of way should continue to have appropriate signage, be kept open at all times and that sufficient clearance be allowed between the development and the beach head to ensure that the walking experience continues to be at least as pleasant as it currently is (08.02.18).
Ballakesh Farm, Bride:
==== PAGE 83 ====
17/01265/B Page 83 of 84
No objection to the old buildings being revamped but inflicting such a large development next to an ASSI and a bird sanctuary is "stupidity". They note the proposed restriction on cats but considers the apartments should be removed from the scheme and that we should be protecting our environment, wildlife and dark skies. They "applauds" the "NIMBYS" in such a beautiful area and suggests that people who care should have the loudest voices not profit makers who "would do anything for money regardless of the impact on the natural environment" (18.10.18)
10 Bridge Street, Castletown: Criticises the use of a wide angle lens in the LVIA to suggest that the impact of the structure is modest and the building looks small. They provide photographs of the existing building from various angles showing its dominance.
Appendix 4
Site selection criteria
"Any site with at least one critical constraint is automatically regarded as unsuitable for development
__
==== PAGE 84 ====
17/01265/B Page 84 of 84
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 13.12.2021
Signed : J CHANCE Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal